Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
36 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,953 Year: 18,989/19,786 Month: 1,409/1,705 Week: 215/446 Day: 13/98 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 31 of 109 (580858)
09-11-2010 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ICANT
09-11-2010 5:21 PM


Erets and Adamah
quote:
So this man was not only the first man on earth he was the first living life form on earth.
Erets and adamah are not the planet. (Not The Planet)

The story doesn't tell us that Adam was the first man on the planet or the first living life form on the planet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 09-11-2010 5:21 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 09-13-2010 12:05 PM purpledawn has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 32 of 109 (581071)
09-13-2010 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by purpledawn
09-11-2010 7:06 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
Hi PD,

purpledawn writes:

The story doesn't tell us that Adam was the first man on the planet or the first living life form on the planet.

Can you point out in the story in Genesis 2:4-25 where there was anything other than dry land except where the river from Eden that divided into 4 rivers, where there was anything but dry land.

There was no fish or water creatures in this story.

Which means:

There was no seas at that time.

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 31 by purpledawn, posted 09-11-2010 7:06 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 09-13-2010 12:09 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 09-13-2010 12:25 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 35 by purpledawn, posted 09-13-2010 12:53 PM ICANT has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31518
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 33 of 109 (581072)
09-13-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
09-13-2010 12:05 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
No, it means that the story tellers did not talk about fish or seas.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 09-13-2010 12:05 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17444
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 34 of 109 (581075)
09-13-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
09-13-2010 12:05 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
ICANT writes:

Can you point out in the story in Genesis 2:4-25 where there was anything other than dry land except where the river from Eden that divided into 4 rivers, where there was anything but dry land.


Where do you suppose the rivers flowed to?


Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 09-13-2010 12:05 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 09-13-2010 4:39 PM ringo has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 35 of 109 (581077)
09-13-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
09-13-2010 12:05 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
quote:
There was no fish or water creatures in this story.

Which means:

There was no seas at that time.


Aside from the obvious that jar mentioned, it also means that the creation wasn't the main point of that story. A storyteller brings in the pieces that build on the point or moral he is trying to make.

Just like when I apply for an executive secretary position, I don't bring up my aluminum siding skills. They are irrelevant to the interview for that job.

We have to remember that this story was probably told in a tribal setting. Most people were illiterate. They weren't checking details after the story and the Genesis 1 story wasn't written yet.

I'm sure the storyteller had an answer for anyone who did ask about fish or the seas.

The lack of fish or oceans in the story, does not make erets or adamah encompass the entire planet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 09-13-2010 12:05 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ICANT, posted 09-13-2010 4:51 PM purpledawn has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 36 of 109 (581097)
09-13-2010 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ringo
09-13-2010 12:25 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
Hi ringo,

ringo writes:

Where do you suppose the rivers flowed to?

Is that supposed to be a trick question?

The text says:

Genesis 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

It watered the garden and then went out to water the rest of the land. You do know that land can consume a lot of water don't you?

But that does not have anything to do with the first man on the earth (land mass that was dry).

The man formed from the dust of the earth was the first man.

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 34 by ringo, posted 09-13-2010 12:25 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 09-13-2010 5:18 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 37 of 109 (581098)
09-13-2010 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by purpledawn
09-13-2010 12:53 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
Hi PD,

purpledawn writes:

Aside from the obvious that jar mentioned, it also means that the creation wasn't the main point of that story.

The story in Genesis 2:5-25 was to explain what took place in the DAY the earth and heaven was created.

After the earth and heaven existed then God then formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being.

The first life form on earth.

Then God provided food for man in the form of plants and fruit, nut and other various trees.

Does Science posit that the earth has always had water?

Or

Was that water added by a yet to be determined method? There are several hypothesis but no concensus yet that I can find.

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 35 by purpledawn, posted 09-13-2010 12:53 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by purpledawn, posted 09-13-2010 6:35 PM ICANT has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17444
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 38 of 109 (581103)
09-13-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ICANT
09-13-2010 4:39 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
ICANT writes:

ringo writes:

Where do you suppose the rivers flowed to?


Is that supposed to be a trick question?

No. It's supposed to illustrate how silly your assumption is that there were no seas.

ICANT writes:

It watered the garden and then went out to water the rest of the land. You do know that land can consume a lot of water don't you?


There's no reason to assume that the rivers just disappeared into the land. That isn't the normal behaviour of rivers.

ICANT writes:

But that does not have anything to do with the first man on the earth (land mass that was dry).


It does, actually.

A better answer for you to have given is that the rivers flowed out of the story, much like the Mississippi flowed into The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn at the beginning and flowed out at the end. Only the part of the river that's relevant to the story is mentioned. It's quite proper for us to assume that the Mississippi continues outside of the story and that the rivers of Eden continued outside of the story.

Similarly, it's quite proper to assume that other members of mankind existed outside of the story.


Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 09-13-2010 4:39 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2010 5:41 PM ringo has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 39 of 109 (581110)
09-13-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ICANT
09-13-2010 4:51 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
quote:
The story in Genesis 2:5-25 was to explain what took place in the DAY the earth and heaven was created.
We aren't going to get anywhere until you make it clear whether you are using earth as in planet or earth and in land/region.

quote:
The first life form on earth.
The most you can say from the story is the first man/life form in the land or region.

quote:
Does Science posit that the earth has always had water?
Irrelevant.

As I said, the lack of fish or oceans in the story, does not make erets or adamah encompass the entire planet.

So the storyteller is not referring to the planet and Cain took a wife. The story doesn't tell us that Adam was the first man on the planet. The information just isn't there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ICANT, posted 09-13-2010 4:51 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2010 6:10 PM purpledawn has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 40 of 109 (581234)
09-14-2010 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ringo
09-13-2010 5:18 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
Hi ringo,

ringo writes:

No. It's supposed to illustrate how silly your assumption is that there were no seas.

When did seas begin to exist?

Where did the water come from to fill the seas?

Now if the river flowed into a low place and the ground could not absorb the water it would fill up that low place.

There was no rain to fill the river.

So there was no water to fill the seas in the beginning.

ringo writes:

A better answer for you to have given is that the rivers flowed out of the story, much like the Mississippi flowed into The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn at the beginning and flowed out at the end. Only the part of the river that's relevant to the story is mentioned. It's quite proper for us to assume that the Mississippi continues outside of the story and that the rivers of Eden continued outside of the story.

If I am not mistaken this thread is about the Bibilical version of the first man.

As I have said many times it does not make any difference what you think about the Bible. It can be a myth, an outright lie, an allagory, or anything else you want to say or think about it. The fact remains that there are certain things recorded in the text of the 66 books called the Bible.

The text says:

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

God had not caused it to rain upon the earth.

Now it makes no difference where that land was it had not rained on it.

There was not a man to till the ground.

It makes no difference where that land was there was no man to till the land.

The land was watered by a mist that came from the earth. Not the sky. Gen. 2:6.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So before it rained. Before there was any life form this man was formed from the dust of the ground and begame a living being.

In Genesis 2:8 God then planted a garden and caused the vegetation to grow out of the ground.

So according to the text the man formed from the dust of the ground was the first living life form on the dry land.

ringo writes:

Similarly, it's quite proper to assume that other members of mankind existed outside of the story.

You can assume anything you desire to assume.

But that is not what the Biblical text we are supposed to be discussing says.

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 38 by ringo, posted 09-13-2010 5:18 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 09-14-2010 6:52 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 41 of 109 (581239)
09-14-2010 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by purpledawn
09-13-2010 6:35 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
Hi PD,

purpledawn writes:

We aren't going to get anywhere until you make it clear whether you are using earth as in planet or earth and in land/region.

Any land that man could walk upon.

Since there was no seas in the beginning that means he could walk on all that existed at that time..

It must have been a lot smaller then than it is now because we have trillions of tons of organic material that has grown and been covered by miles of solid rock, which formed our coal, oil, and natural gas.

In the beginning the earth could not be as it is today unless you got a better idea. Do you want to start a thread and explain it to me.

purpledawn writes:

The most you can say from the story is the first man/life form in the land or region.

Well according to the Biblical text we are discussing there was no man to till the land.

So it makes no difference where the land was there was no man to till the land.

There was no man until the man in Genesis 2:7 was formed from the dust of the ground and became a living being.

That man is refered to as Adam. I just call him the first man.

purpledawn writes:

So the storyteller is not referring to the planet and Cain took a wife.

Quit adding to the text.

Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

That text does not say anything about Cain finding a wife.

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Does that mean that Adam found Eve his wife?

Or does it mean they had sex and Cain was the product of that relationship?

The same goes for Cain knowing his wife and her bearing Enoch.

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 39 by purpledawn, posted 09-13-2010 6:35 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by purpledawn, posted 09-14-2010 7:20 PM ICANT has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17444
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 42 of 109 (581250)
09-14-2010 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ICANT
09-14-2010 5:41 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
ICANT writes:

Now if the river flowed into a low place and the ground could not absorb the water it would fill up that low place.

There was no rain to fill the river.

So there was no water to fill the seas in the beginning.


Non sequitur. We know that there were rivers in the story. Ergo, there were seas, even if they were outside the story.

ICANT writes:

The land was watered by a mist that came from the earth. Not the sky. Gen. 2:6.


That's a further indication that the story doesn't apply to the whole earth. The earth as a whole is watered from the sky. The water cycle applies wherever there is water on the ground and a sun in the sky. Only certain small areas are watered solely by irrigation. (The "watered by mist" element in the story seems largely or wholly fictional.)

ICANT writes:

In Genesis 2:8 God then planted a garden and caused the vegetation to grow out of the ground.

So according to the text the man formed from the dust of the ground was the first living life form on the dry land.


No. The text seems pretty plain that he was the first life form in the garden.


Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2010 5:41 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 09-15-2010 11:30 AM ringo has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 43 of 109 (581258)
09-14-2010 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ICANT
09-14-2010 6:10 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
quote:
Any land that man could walk upon.
Great, we aren't talking about the planet.

quote:
Since there was no seas in the beginning that means he could walk on all that existed at that time.
Genesis 2 doesn't tell us there were no seas. Seas weren't part of the story.

quote:
Well according to the Biblical text we are discussing there was no man to till the land.

So it makes no difference where the land was there was no man to till the land.


Not the planet, so the land is limited to the areas known by the audience. The story doesn't encompass the planet.

quote:
purpledawn writes:

So the storyteller is not referring to the planet and Cain took a wife.

Quit adding to the text.

Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

That text does not say anything about Cain finding a wife.


Neither did I if you look at what you quoted. He had to be with her to have sex with her. Cain had a wife.

quote:
Does that mean that Adam found Eve his wife?

Or does it mean they had sex and Cain was the product of that relationship?

The same goes for Cain knowing his wife and her bearing Enoch.


You're losing it. I have no idea what your point is concerning Cain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2010 6:10 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 09-15-2010 12:01 PM purpledawn has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 44 of 109 (581379)
09-15-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by ringo
09-14-2010 6:52 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
Hi ringo,

ringo writes:

Non sequitur. We know that there were rivers in the story. Ergo, there were seas, even if they were outside the story.

Who is the we you are refering to?

Do you have a reference to when the seas began to exist?

According to what I can find it was too hot in the beginning for water to exist. So at what point did it begin to exist?

The story in chapter 2 of Genesis is not talking about a few thousand years ago. It is talking about the day the Heaven and the Earth began to exist.

ringo writes:

That's a further indication that the story doesn't apply to the whole earth. The earth as a whole is watered from the sky. The water cycle applies wherever there is water on the ground and a sun in the sky. Only certain small areas are watered solely by irrigation. (The "watered by mist" element in the story seems largely or wholly fictional.)

So you are spinning what is written in the book to suit yourself.

What you believe or what I believe is not what is being discussed.

We are supposed to be discussing what the Biblical text says.

Which is:

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

"there was no man to till the ground."

Genesis 2:6 "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

There was no source of water to form the seas.

ringo writes:

No. The text seems pretty plain that he was the first life form in the garden.

You either need to improve your reading skills or remove the glasses you are wearing that you can't see through.

The text says:

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

God formed man and breathed into his nostrils and he bacame a living being. First life form.

There was no garden at that time.

God then planted a garden.

Then God put the man in the garden.

God then caused the things He had planted to bring forth various plants. Beginning of plant life.

Whether the story is true or not that is what is recorded in the text of the book called the Holy Bible.

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 42 by ringo, posted 09-14-2010 6:52 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by ringo, posted 09-15-2010 12:05 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 45 of 109 (581388)
09-15-2010 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by purpledawn
09-14-2010 7:20 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
Hi PD,

purpledawn writes:

Great, we aren't talking about the planet.

Correction, you aren't talking about the planet.

I am talking about any speck of land that existed on the face of the earth.

purpledawn writes:

Genesis 2 doesn't tell us there were no seas. Seas weren't part of the story.

No fish, or water fowl formed leads me to believe there was no seas, to put them in.

The river had to provide pure drinking water, so no fish was introduced.

purpledawn writes:

Not the planet, so the land is limited to the areas known by the audience. The story doesn't encompass the planet.

What part of the FACE OF THE EARTH do you not understand?

Whole earth encompases all land that existed anywhere.

purpledawn writes:

Neither did I if you look at what you quoted. He had to be with her to have sex with her. Cain had a wife.

So was I misinterpeting what you said:

purpledawn writes:

So the storyteller is not referring to the planet and Cain took a wife.

I understood you to be infering Cain took a wife in the land he had gone into which was Nod.

Are you now saying that Cain took his wife to the land of Nod and there they had sex and produced Enoch?

You are trying to support your belief that the earth is not the entire planet and there was people living on other parts of the earth.

purpledawn writes:

You're losing it. I have no idea what your point is concerning Cain.

According to many people I lost it a long time ago so I would have nothing to lose.

My contention about Cain is that he took his wife with him when he went and settled in the land of Nod. There they raised a family. In fact there are six generations of Cain's descendents listed in Genesis chapter 4.

What is really amazing about them is there is no age stated for any of them.

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 43 by purpledawn, posted 09-14-2010 7:20 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by purpledawn, posted 09-15-2010 1:53 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 58 by doctrbill, posted 09-16-2010 10:47 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019