Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2

Amlodhi admits it says Adam but it should be translated ishi.The definite article is supposed to prevent what Amlodhi is doing but he will flood you with rhetoric/misuse of logic to support his evolutionary rendering.The writer of Genesis said Adam because he meant what he said - a separate and distinct creation of God.

I am sorry you are angry.I only know what you type into a post.You admit the original says Adam/Odom but it should be translated differently.Is this not true ?My point about the def/art is that it pinpoints the next word and singles it out.

Yes you have.Would you like me to retrieve it ?BTW, it really doesn't matter because you have proven yourself dishonest no matter what.Dr. Gordon produces a book based upon years of archaeology and you just spin it to mean contrary to the title and thesis of the book.Your anger towards me is contrived - a tantrum geared to deflect away from the truth/evidence. Imagine that, an atheist erupts with anger because someone allegedly misrepresents his position. Your kind has been doing that to theist claims for centuries, and true to the claims of basic psychology, a person condemns that which he is secretly guilty of the most.

I only have one question:Is it accurate to translate the said verse "Adam" or "Odom" or is the KJV correct - "man"/ishi ?I will not challenge what you say. I just want to know.WTEdit:Don't you remember that I conceded the point (in the previous topic) when you evidenced through Ezekiel ?This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-04-2004 10:09 PM