Adam. The 'first man'?

Imagican · Feb 12, 2016

Since the first time I read the Bible, it was clear to me that the 'story' that the 'churches' tell is not the same 'story' that the Bible tells.

In the first chapter of Genesis, on the sixth day it states that God created 'man'. But not only man, but man and woman. And they were told to be fruitful and multiply. It also states that God had given them every herb and every tree that bears fruit 'on the face of the earth' to be for food.

Then in the second chapter it says that "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them".

This is a pretty profound statement. It states that God was 'done' with the 'days of creation' and on the seventh day He rested.

Then the Bible states that:

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.

Note that it does not say 'before there were any plants'. It states clearly 'of the field'. A 'field' is a 'prepared parcel of land'. Something 'created' for cultivation.

And the Bible does 'not' say that there were 'no men'. It states clearly that there was 'not a man to TILL' the earth.

We know for a 'fact' that in the beginning, (even according to the Bible), that men were nomadic gatherers long before they learned to cultivate plants for food. They simply went out and hunted and picked and dug whatever food grew wild.

It took perhaps tens of thousands of years before men learned to actually 'grow' their own food. No need to learn to grow food if it grew plentiful in nature. You simply gather until you have to go too far from your home and then simply pack up what little you own and move to a new clean water source with plenty of 'wild food'.

If we take this into consideration, the obviousness is that there were 'two separate' creations of men.

The first were created and told to be fruitful and multiply. This obviously wasn't told to Adam and Eve for they didn't even know they were naked when they were created. If they didn't understand the concept of nakedness, it is unlikely that they would have known anything about sex or procreation.

And it states that the first creation was given access to every tree bearing fruit upon the face of the earth to be for food.

Yet when God created Adam, he was placed in a garden and commanded that there was 'a' tree he was forbidden to partake.

That means that if Adam were the first man, the offering of ALL trees on the face of the Earth could not be true. For God told Adam that there was 'one tree' he was forbidden to eat from. Contradiction? Only if you believe that Adam was the first man. For the first men were 'not' given any such commandment.

And note that there is a difference in the story of the 'first creation' verses Adam.

When God created Adam the Bible states that God breathed into Adam the 'breath of life' and Adam became a 'living soul'. The Bible states no such thing concerning the 'first creation'.

Then Adam and Eve had two children. NO mention of any 'other children'. Just two male children: Cain and Abel. Not one mention of 'any' other children.

Cain killed his brother. God confronted Cain. He placed a mark upon Cain so that any that would 'see him' would know what he had done. Really? Since there were only three people on the planet according to the 'churches', 'who' would see Cain that didn't already 'know' what he had done????? And then Cain says that everyone that sees the mark will want to kill him. 'Who'? If the only other three people on the planet already know what he has done, how could a mark make them want to kill him? So who is Cain concerned with seeing his mark? Obviously even Adam, Eve and Cain already 'knew' there were 'other people'. For Cain would have nothing to fear if there were 'no other people' on the planet except for his parents and siblings.

Continued.

timewerx · Feb 13, 2016

Imagican said:
In the first chapter of Genesis, on the sixth day it states that God created 'man'. But not only man, but man and woman. And they were told to be fruitful and multiply. It also states that God had given them every herb and every tree that bears fruit 'on the face of the earth' to be for food.

It is possible that man was originally both male and female, capable of asexual reproduction - virgin birth - this must be the relevance of Christ fulfilling every bit of the Laws of God that He be brought into the world via virgin birth also.

We know for a 'fact' that in the beginning, (even according to the Bible), that men were nomadic gatherers long before they learned to cultivate plants for food. They simply went out and hunted and picked and dug whatever food grew wild.

It took perhaps tens of thousands of years before men learned to actually 'grow' their own food. No need to learn to grow food if it grew plentiful in nature. You simply gather until you have to go too far from your home and then simply pack up what little you own and move to a new clean water source with plenty of 'wild food'.

The "Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard" alludes to this time.... That all people were compensated equally (rather, everything is free) that this defines one of the principles in the "Kingdom of God" unlike the capitalistic economy we have today that is driven by greed.

MWood · Feb 13, 2016

timewerx said:
It is possible that man was originally both male and female, capable of asexual reproduction - virgin birth - this must be the relevance of Christ fulfilling every bit of the Laws of God that He be brought into the world via virgin birth also.

The "Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard" alludes to this time.... That all people were compensated equally (rather, everything is free) that this defines one of the principles in the "Kingdom of God" unlike the capitalistic economy we have today that is driven by greed.

Your statements reeks of "reading something into the Scriptures" that is not there.

Don't hate our Capitalistic society. It is what has made our Country so much greater than all other Countries. Because of Capitalism everyone is guaranteed the freedom of enterprise and pursue the wealth of their dreams. Every one is greedy, always has been. I wouldn't change our Capitalistic economy for any other system that is in this world. This is very off topic. I have nothing else to say about it. But it needed to be said.

roamer_1 · Feb 13, 2016

timewerx said:
That all people were compensated equally (rather, everything is free) that this defines one of the principles in the "Kingdom of God" unlike the capitalistic economy we have today that is driven by greed.

What an awful suggestion that would be...Nothing to strive for, nothing to learn, no rising to excellence, No benefit from the labor of your hands, no value in pioneering, nothing to risk, nothing to gain... etc. No, 'everything free' is not YHWH's way.

Nor is capitalism driven by greed. It is driven by merit. Money is just a way of keeping score.

MerriestHouse · Feb 14, 2016

Imagican said:
The first were created and told to be fruitful and multiply. This obviously wasn't told to Adam and Eve for they didn't even know they were naked when they were created. If they didn't understand the concept of nakedness, it is unlikely that they would have known anything about sex or procreation.

And it states that the first creation was given access to every tree bearing fruit upon the face of the earth to be for food.

Yet when God created Adam, he was placed in a garden and commanded that there was 'a' tree he was forbidden to partake.

That means that if Adam were the first man, the offering of ALL trees on the face of the Earth could not be true. For God told Adam that there was 'one tree' he was forbidden to eat from. Contradiction? Only if you believe that Adam was the first man. For the first men were 'not' given any such commandment.

And note that there is a difference in the story of the 'first creation' verses Adam.

When God created Adam the Bible states that God breathed into Adam the 'breath of life' and Adam became a 'living soul'. The Bible states no such thing concerning the 'first creation'.

Then Adam and Eve had two children. NO mention of any 'other children'. Just two male children: Cain and Abel. Not one mention of 'any' other children.

Cain killed his brother. God confronted Cain. He placed a mark upon Cain so that any that would 'see him' would know what he had done. Really? Since there were only three people on the planet according to the 'churches', 'who' would see Cain that didn't already 'know' what he had done????? And then Cain says that everyone that sees the mark will want to kill him. 'Who'? If the only other three people on the planet already know what he has done, how could a mark make them want to kill him? So who is Cain concerned with seeing his mark? Obviously even Adam, Eve and Cain already 'knew' there were 'other people'. For Cain would have nothing to fear if there were 'no other people' on the planet except for his parents and siblings.

Continued.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain and Abel. When the Bible says
"Adam knew his wife" in Genesis and other places, that means that they were intimate. When the Bible states that a man "knew his wife" it follows with "and she brought forth a child" or "she conceived." When the Bible says "Cain knew his wife, this means that they were intimate and she conceived. It should be obvious that Cain took his wife with him when he left home. His wife was his sister or another female offspring of Adam and Eve.

Genesis 4:25 "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."

Genesis 4:19 And Lamech took two wives; the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20 Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle. 21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. 22 Zillah bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron."

These were some educated people. Why would you think that they would not know how to raise potatos and beans?

Imagican · Feb 14, 2016

There is absolutely no mention of there being 'any other children' When Cain slew Abel. It was only 'after' he killed his brother that Eve conceived and had another son.

I am reading 'nothing' into the words offered. What is indicated from the words is that there were no other children until after Cain killed Abel.

And you failed to answer the question. Would you allow your murderous son who God had just turned His back on to leave with one of your daughters?

And you have addressed only 'one' of the issues raised. How about the need to place a 'mark' on Cain to warn others of what he had done? Who? Surely his entire family would already 'know' what he had done. So 'who' would the mark be a warning to?

Who named the Land of Nod? And why build a 'city' there for 'three people'?

Not only does the Bible plainly illustrate 'two separate' creations, science has proven that there were two distinct humanoids in our past. One much more primitive than the other. We not only have the fossilized evidence, but more recently, DNA evidence that supports the fossil evidence. And the amount of evidence is vast to the point that one would be forced to play like the proverbial ostrich to hide themselves from the evidence.

And the funny part is that the only thing that would lead one to discredit or ignore the evidence is the 'silly story' that the Churches have created and passed on from generation to generation.

And it may have made a sort of sense in the beginning. But now that we have the evidence, isn't it time to forgo the fairy tales and limited understanding that once existed?

I don't find the scientific evidence contrary to the Bible. What I do find is the evidence destroying the 'fabricated' story created by the 'Church'. The 'story' does not 'match' what the Bible offers. Nor does the 'story' match the fossilized evidence that we have found in recent history.

No, I see absolutely 'no evidence' Biblically that Cain had any sisters at the time he was 'sent away'. And I can't imagine letting my murderous son take one of my daughters away with him. I can't imagine one of my daughters 'wanting' to leave with her murderous brother. And I also can't imagine one of my daughters wanting to mate with someone who God had turned His back on.

Do you choose to ignore the 'fact' that mankind in the beginning were 'nomadic gatherers'? No need to plant or harvest. They simply picked and dug up the food they ate without the need for cultivation. As far as we are able to determine, it may have taken hundreds of thousands of years before men had a 'need' to learn to cultivate crops. Until the 'need' to learn agriculture, they simply ate what grew naturally. That is what the Bible states.

It wasn't until Adam that we have any evidence that 'tending fields' took place. But even Adam and Eve, in the beginning, were supplied food naturally without the 'need' to plant or harvest. It was only 'after' they sinned that the punishment of Adam was that he would have to 'work' to feed himself and his family.

Blessings,

MEC

MerriestHouse · Feb 14, 2016

Imagican said:
There is absolutely no mention of there being 'any other children' When Cain slew Abel. It was only 'after' he killed his brother that Eve conceived and had another son.

I am reading 'nothing' into the words offered. What is indicated from the words is that there were no other children until after Cain killed Abel.

And you failed to answer the question. Would you allow your murderous son who God had just turned His back on to leave with one of your daughters?

And you have addressed only 'one' of the issues raised. How about the need to place a 'mark' on Cain to warn others of what he had done? Who? Surely his entire family would already 'know' what he had done. So 'who' would the mark be a warning to?

Who named the Land of Nod? And why build a 'city' there for 'three people'?

Not only does the Bible plainly illustrate 'two separate' creations, science has proven that there were two distinct humanoids in our past. One much more primitive than the other. We not only have the fossilized evidence, but more recently, DNA evidence that supports the fossil evidence. And the amount of evidence is vast to the point that one would be forced to play like the proverbial ostrich to hide themselves from the evidence.

And the funny part is that the only thing that would lead one to discredit or ignore the evidence is the 'silly story' that the Churches have created and passed on from generation to generation.

And it may have made a sort of sense in the beginning. But now that we have the evidence, isn't it time to forgo the fairy tales and limited understanding that once existed?

I don't find the scientific evidence contrary to the Bible. What I do find is the evidence destroying the 'fabricated' story created by the 'Church'. The 'story' does not 'match' what the Bible offers. Nor does the 'story' match the fossilized evidence that we have found in recent history.

No, I see absolutely 'no evidence' Biblically that Cain had any sisters at the time he was 'sent away'. And I can't imagine letting my murderous son take one of my daughters away with him. I can't imagine one of my daughters 'wanting' to leave with her murderous brother. And I also can't imagine one of my daughters wanting to mate with someone who God had turned His back on.

Do you choose to ignore the 'fact' that mankind in the beginning were 'nomadic gatherers'? No need to plant or harvest. They simply picked and dug up the food they ate without the need for cultivation. As far as we are able to determine, it may have taken hundreds of thousands of years before men had a 'need' to learn to cultivate crops. Until the 'need' to learn agriculture, they simply ate what grew naturally. That is what the Bible states.

It wasn't until Adam that we have any evidence that 'tending fields' took place. But even Adam and Eve, in the beginning, were supplied food naturally without the 'need' to plant or harvest. It was only 'after' they sinned that the punishment of Adam was that he would have to 'work' to feed himself and his family.

Blessings,

MEC

Acts 17:26 "And he made from ONE, every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,"

ONE here is the "cardinal number." In this passage, the meaning is "One Man."

God created Adam, and from Adam, he created Eve, and from Adam and Eve every other person on earth was born.

Everything that is written on any Bible subject should be taken into considering. We should not forget everything else we have read when we form our opinion. Many things that are vague to us in the OT are made clear in the NT. We find out in the NT why Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice. It was not because he offered vegetables to God and Abel offered an animal, it was because Abel's heart was right with God an Cain's was not. God accepts offerings from good and honest hearts, no matter how insignificant the gift may seem to us.

Isaiah 28:9 "Whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from the milk, those taken from the breast? 10 For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little."

Imagican · Feb 14, 2016

You know guys and gals, the 'Church' once taught that the 'earth' was the center of the universe. They were 'wrong'. The 'Church' once taught that one could 'buy' their way into heaven. They were wrong about that too. The 'Church' taught many things that were later found to be 'false' when the evidence presented itself to 'the people'.

Even as recent as American history, they use to burn witches. And often only an accusation being the cause.

The 'Church' taught that plagues and famines were caused by God. Even today we have people speaking in gibberish and insisting that such non sense are 'tongues of God', (or angels).

Paul once addressed the 'Church at Corinth' and admonished them to 'put away childish things'. Clearly recognizing that the 'Church' there was struggling with 'childish ways'.

Isn't it time that we 'grow up' in understanding instead of insisting upon 'childish fairy tales'? God didn't give us the capacity to 'learn' without expecting us to 'do so'.

Everyone on this forum probably has a cell phone. Obviously they have computers.

Why is it that most will readily accept technology and the giant leaps we have made in understanding the discoveries concerning electronics, transportation, communication, food production, medicine and treatments for diseases and all sorts of malady.

Yet when it comes to the discoveries concerning 'ancient man', how quickly can some dismiss the physical evidence that clearly shows that there were no 'literal six days of creation'.

God used the term 'day' to indicate a 'beginning' and 'ending' of a 'time period'. The NT clearly shows that to God, a day can be like a thousand years or a thousand years as 'a day'.

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

And note: we are instructed 'not to be ignorant' of this FACT. And it's not meant to be literal, but figurative. So if one day is 'like' a thousand years, it could also be stated that a 'million years' to God is as 'a day'. God is not confined by 'time'.

Blessings,

MEC

Imagican · Feb 14, 2016

MerriestHouse said:
Acts 17:26 "And he made from ONE, every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,"

ONE here is the "cardinal number." In this passage, the meaning is "One Man."

God created Adam, and from Adam, he created Eve, and from Adam and Eve every other person on earth was born.

Everything that is written on any Bible subject should be taken into considering. We should not forget everything else we have read when we form our opinion. Many things that are vague to us in the OT are made clear in the NT. We find out in the NT why Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice. It was not because he offered vegetables to God and Abel offered an animal, it was because Abel's heart was right with God an Cain's was not. God accepts offerings from good and honest hearts, no matter how insignificant the gift may seem to us.

Isaiah 28:9 "Whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from the milk, those taken from the breast? 10 For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little."

I would offer that this is one of those instances where different interpretations of the Bible can offer completely different understanding by changing 'words'.

This is what the KJV of the Bible offers:

Acts 17:26 (KJV)
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation

But if we were to take this literally, that would mean that we 'all have the same blood'. But we don't. There are perhaps as many as a hundred different 'types of blood'.

This is what Wiki offers concerning 'blood types':

A complete blood type would describe a full set of 30 substances on the surface of RBCs, and an individual's blood type is one of many possible combinations of blood-group antigens.[4] Across the 35 blood groups, over 600 different blood-group antigens have been found,[5] but many of these are very rare, some being found mainly in certain ethnic groups.

So the obvious reference is to a 'generalized' statement that human blood is exclusive. Meaning that human blood is different than other animals. But it cannot mean that we 'all share' the same 'type' blood.

You know, sometimes we must accept the evidence we have along with what the Bible offers.

In Genesis it states that when God sent the plagues to Egypt that the locust covered the 'face of the earth'. But we know that this is figurative instead of literal. How? By the obviousness of how it was offered. What it meant was 'they covered the face of the earth' in Egypt. No indication whatsoever that the locusts affected any other part of the earth except Egypt.

I already pointed out that science has found two distinct DNA patterns that match the fossil evidence of two distinct humanoids mating together. So the offering of 'one blood' would indicate the ability of 'all mankind' to procreate with each other. We 'all' have 'human blood'. Which is distinctly different than the blood of 'other animals'.

You quoted your Bible as offering simply 'one'. I can see how that could lead one to believe it's referencing 'Adam'. But you see what the KJV offers that that leads to no such indication. "One blood" certainly doesn't indicate 'one man': Adam.

Blessings,

MEC

I have no problem accepting what is offered in the Bible. But I don't have any idea what Bible you are reading.

MerriestHouse · Feb 14, 2016

Imagican said:
I would offer that this is one of those instances where different interpretations of the Bible can offer completely different understanding by changing 'words'.

This is what the KJV of the Bible offers:

Acts 17:26 (KJV)
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation

But if we were to take this literally, that would mean that we 'all have the same blood'. But we don't. There are perhaps as many as a hundred different 'types of blood'.

This is what Wiki offers concerning 'blood types':

A complete blood type would describe a full set of 30 substances on the surface of RBCs, and an individual's blood type is one of many possible combinations of blood-group antigens.[4] Across the 35 blood groups, over 600 different blood-group antigens have been found,[5] but many of these are very rare, some being found mainly in certain ethnic groups.

So the obvious reference is to a 'generalized' statement that human blood is exclusive. Meaning that human blood is different than other animals. But it cannot mean that we 'all share' the same 'type' blood.

You know, sometimes we must accept the evidence we have along with what the Bible offers.

In Genesis it states that when God sent the plagues to Egypt that the locust covered the 'face of the earth'. But we know that this is figurative instead of literal. How? By the obviousness of how it was offered. What it meant was 'they covered the face of the earth' in Egypt. No indication whatsoever that the locusts affected any other part of the earth except Egypt.

I already pointed out that science has found two distinct DNA patterns that match the fossil evidence of two distinct humanoids mating together. So the offering of 'one blood' would indicate the ability of 'all mankind' to procreate with each other. We 'all' have 'human blood'. Which is distinctly different than the blood of 'other animals'.

You quoted your Bible as offering simply 'one'. I can see how that could lead one to believe it's referencing 'Adam'. But you see what the KJV offers that that leads to no such indication. "One blood" certainly doesn't indicate 'one man': Adam.

Blessings,

MEC

I have no problem accepting what is offered in the Bible. But I don't have any idea what Bible you are reading.

The Greek word for "blood" is not in that passage.

Noah was a direct descendant of Adam. The Bible says that all people who were not on Noah's ark perished in the flood. Noah and his family and the animals were on the Ark for 371 days. Noah was told to multiply and replenish the earth. Where were all of these other people?

timewerx · Feb 14, 2016

roamer_1 said:
No, 'everything free' is not YHWH's way.

It used to be at the beginning - before the fall of man.

It wasn't God who made the mistake, it was man.

roamer_1 · Feb 14, 2016

timewerx said:
It used to be at the beginning - before the fall of man.

I sure don't think so... YHWH works. Why wouldn't man? And who would want such a thing? What is 'prospering' without challenges, without striving? without reward?

It wasn't God who made the mistake, it was man.

...and you think the curse laid at that time is capitalism?

mike van wyk · Feb 14, 2016

Imagican said:
It took perhaps tens of thousands of years before men learned to actually 'grow' their own food. No need to learn to grow food if it grew plentiful in nature. You simply gather until you have to go too far from your home and then simply pack up what little you own and move to a new clean water source with plenty of 'wild food'.

To me this sounds like evolution theory for no where in the Bible it is quoted as you say, "tens of thousands of years". :scratch:

The earth is not even seven years old???????

mmksparbud · Feb 14, 2016

Imagican said:
Since the first time I read the Bible, it was clear to me that the 'story' that the 'churches' tell is not the same 'story' that the Bible tells.

In the first chapter of Genesis, on the sixth day it states that God created 'man'. But not only man, but man and woman. And they were told to be fruitful and multiply. It also states that God had given them every herb and every tree that bears fruit 'on the face of the earth' to be for food.

Then in the second chapter it says that "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them".

This is a pretty profound statement. It states that God was 'done' with the 'days of creation' and on the seventh day He rested.

Then the Bible states that:

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.

Note that it does not say 'before there were any plants'. It states clearly 'of the field'. A 'field' is a 'prepared parcel of land'. Something 'created' for cultivation.

And the Bible does 'not' say that there were 'no men'. It states clearly that there was 'not a man to TILL' the earth.

We know for a 'fact' that in the beginning, (even according to the Bible), that men were nomadic gatherers long before they learned to cultivate plants for food. They simply went out and hunted and picked and dug whatever food grew wild.

It took perhaps tens of thousands of years before men learned to actually 'grow' their own food. No need to learn to grow food if it grew plentiful in nature. You simply gather until you have to go too far from your home and then simply pack up what little you own and move to a new clean water source with plenty of 'wild food'.

If we take this into consideration, the obviousness is that there were 'two separate' creations of men.

The first were created and told to be fruitful and multiply. This obviously wasn't told to Adam and Eve for they didn't even know they were naked when they were created. If they didn't understand the concept of nakedness, it is unlikely that they would have known anything about sex or procreation.

And it states that the first creation was given access to every tree bearing fruit upon the face of the earth to be for food.

Yet when God created Adam, he was placed in a garden and commanded that there was 'a' tree he was forbidden to partake.

That means that if Adam were the first man, the offering of ALL trees on the face of the Earth could not be true. For God told Adam that there was 'one tree' he was forbidden to eat from. Contradiction? Only if you believe that Adam was the first man. For the first men were 'not' given any such commandment.

And note that there is a difference in the story of the 'first creation' verses Adam.

When God created Adam the Bible states that God breathed into Adam the 'breath of life' and Adam became a 'living soul'. The Bible states no such thing concerning the 'first creation'.

Then Adam and Eve had two children. NO mention of any 'other children'. Just two male children: Cain and Abel. Not one mention of 'any' other children.

Cain killed his brother. God confronted Cain. He placed a mark upon Cain so that any that would 'see him' would know what he had done. Really? Since there were only three people on the planet according to the 'churches', 'who' would see Cain that didn't already 'know' what he had done????? And then Cain says that everyone that sees the mark will want to kill him. 'Who'? If the only other three people on the planet already know what he has done, how could a mark make them want to kill him? So who is Cain concerned with seeing his mark? Obviously even Adam, Eve and Cain already 'knew' there were 'other people'. For Cain would have nothing to fear if there were 'no other people' on the planet except for his parents and siblings.

Continued.[/QUOTE

Gen 2 is obviously just a recap of Gen 1 with added details, a Jewish method of writing found in other areas of the bible. There are no verses or chapters in the Hebrew--it was on a scroll that you rolled out and read right to left and precious little for punctuation. There is no division between Gen 1 and 2 in Hebrew. It is a continuation---first comes the account of what happened each day, and ends with
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
A summary of creation week, followed by a more detailed description of things, but not in chronological order. Gen 1 God makes the whole world--Gen 2 concentrates on what was done in the Garden of Eden , a corner of the world for Adam and Eve--their home--though they were given dominion over the whole earth in Gen 1. All the trees on the planet were theirs, but within their corner, in their own garden, existed one lone tree that they were not to eat of.

The Mechanical Translation from the Hebrew is interesting---much more what it actually says than other versions. They do have the verses and chapters and punctuation for ease of reading.

http://www.mechanical-translation.org/mt/index.html

Genesis 2:5
and all the shrubs of the field before existing in the land, and all the herbs of the field before springing up, given that Yhwh the Elohiym did not make it precipitate upon the land and it was without a human to serve the ground,
Genesis 2:6
and a mist will go up from the land and he made all the face of the ground drink,
Genesis 2:7
and Yhwh the Elohiym molded the human of powder from the ground and he exhaled in his nostrils a breath of life and the human existed for a living being,

Before God created Adam on the 6th day, there was no one to serve the ground--take care if it. No rain--God formed Adam (his name means human)out of that ground--Gen 1 gives the account of creating man on that 6th day---Gen 2 goes back and fills in a little more detail of what happened during that creation.----God breathed life into Adam and took Eve from His rib.
Not 2 creations---2 narratives of the same event. If you read all of Exodus you will see the same thing, several times, the narrative goes back to a certain time to give more information of what happened then during the Exodus.
Genesis 2:19
and Yhwh the Elohiym molded from the ground all the living ones of the field, and all the flyers of the skies, and he brought to the human to see what he will call out to him and all the living beings which the human will call out to him, that is his title,

This is not yet another creation that God made after He formed Adam---just that Adam was the one that named everything God had made.

In the bible, women are seldom mentioned, unless it is for extraordinary circumstances ----female children were never really listed---the males were the thing---there are no female children listed for most of the genealogies---a man traced his family tree from eldest male to eldest male. The bible does not state that Cain was the first child, born of the 1st time Adam "knew" Eve. It states that Cain was the first male to be born,
and the human had known Hhawah his woman and she conceived and she brought forth Qayin, and she said, I purchased a man with Yhwh ,
Genesis 4:2
and she brought forth again his brother Hevel, and Hevel existed as a feeder of the flocks, and Qayin existed as a server of the ground,

Plus an interesting point about Cain and Abel---throughout the bible, when a women gives birth it is--the man "knew" her and she conceived and bore the child---always, she conceived first and then she bore. With Cain and Abel, there is no such division. There is with Seth--but with Cain and Abel it is different--Adam knew Eve, she conceived and bore Cain, then it says--again she bore Abel---not she was known, conceived and bore---it is felt by most Jewish scholars that Cain and Abel were twins---never mentioned by any one else.
Cain bring the first male, and no indication that this was the first time Adam knew Eve, she had could have had many females before Cain and Abel were born. There is no mention of Abel having a wife and children, but more than likely he did as being the 2nd in line, it would not have been mentioned. And seeing that these first people were in perfect health and no genetic flaws to pass on, they married their sisters and they would have had many, many children. Even today, within the ages of 15-45, women are on record as giving birth to over 20 children! These 1st ones lived for several hundred years and just 2 could have spat out a whole town before they stopped producing! By the time Cain killed Abel---and it doesn't say how old they were---there could have been several towns!! And by the time that Adam and Eve died---they were elbow deep in offspring!!
The custom of marrying sisters was continued past Abraham, who was married to his half sister--whose union God certainly blessed. By the time of Moses, genetic flaws are setting in and the custom is now no longer a good thing and God says no more relations with close relatives.

timewerx · Feb 14, 2016

roamer_1 said:
I sure don't think so... YHWH works. Why wouldn't man? And who would want such a thing? What is 'prospering' without challenges, without striving? without reward?

...and you think the curse laid at that time is capitalism?

Capitalism is not the curse of man but the curse of man led to many things including capitalism.

Capitalism makes profit from the weak or weaker which is why I don't believe this is God's way. Jesus told us to be the servant of all, to help the poor and the weak and the less fortunate, not to profit from their misery - through their cheap labor.

Also, capitalism will not work under a fully automated society. It is about to hit a wall that it cannot break... I will not miss it though.

civilwarbuff · Feb 14, 2016

timewerx said:
Capitalism is not the curse of man but the curse of man led to many things including capitalism.

Capitalism makes profit from the weak or weaker which is why I don't believe this is God's way. Jesus told us to be the servant of all, to help the poor and the weak and the less fortunate, not to profit from their misery - through their cheap labor.

Also, capitalism will not work under a fully automated society. It is about to hit a wall that it cannot break... I will not miss it though.

Looking to ride the Socialist Express?

roamer_1 · Feb 14, 2016

timewerx said:
Capitalism makes profit from the weak or weaker which is why I don't believe this is God's way. Jesus told us to be the servant of all, to help the poor and the weak and the less fortunate, not to profit from their misery - through their cheap labor.

Wow.I have never heard such a wrong headed statement on economics in all of my life. Find another economy in all of history that has allowed the poor to get beyond their station. There is nothing stopping you, or anyone else from obtaining unmeasured success, except your own fear and lack of ambition. Sure it's a hard road. But the road is there.

Capitalism is the natural order of economy. Capitalism is what made, and bears the middle class. Without capitalism, there will be no upward mobility, because there will be no middle.

I have had four companies in my life. I started each one on a shoestring, and worked each one into a corporation employing others. Your statement is a great offense to me, as you accuse *me*. You believe a damnable lie. I did not make money off the misery of others, nor did I employ 'cheap labor'. And neither, by the way, did those whom I did business with. Most businessmen are charitable to a fault, because they have the money to do so.

Also, capitalism will not work under a fully automated society. It is about to hit a wall that it cannot break... I will not miss it though.

LOL! Ahh! the sophistry of modernity. Sooner or later, you will run out of other people's money. Then tyranny.

civilwarbuff · Feb 14, 2016

I think people like the idea of "free stuff"....free medical care, free college...they never stop to think that free has costs....sort of like freedom.

roamer_1 · Feb 15, 2016

civilwarbuff said:
I think people like the idea of "free stuff"....free medical care, free college...they never stop to think that free has costs....sort of like freedom.

Precisely right. Liberty has responsibilities. Freedom has consequences.

timewerx · Feb 15, 2016

roamer_1 said:
I have had four companies in my life. I started each one on a shoestring

If ALL working people on Earth is as good (hardworking, enterprising, bold, etc) as you, similar circumstances in life, similar goals and ambitions (and a good Christian), you'll probably end up scrubbing toilets for a living because of the incredible competition you'll face.

That's a fact about Capitalism's pyramid structure.... Thank God, not everyone is smart about making money??

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm not accusing you either of believing in a lie. No one lied to you.... You just weren't told of everything there is to know about Capitalism. Sorry If I may have offended you because I see you as innocent in this matter.

LOL! Ahh! the sophistry of modernity. Sooner or later, you will run out of other people's money. Then tyranny.

Under extensive automation, it will be less ideal to employ people anymore. A lot of people will lose their jobs or a new (elite) class of society being born - particularly people with skills relevant to robotics and software development. Anyone else will no longer be "economically viable". The economy will likely crash at this point due to soaring jobless rates (who will buy your products if a lot of people lost their jobs to automation?), the short-sightedness of anyone who will invest in automation for the sake of more profits is laid bare....

And what if Artificial Intelligence is invented?? Then no one is no longer economically viable since the machines could now upgrade themselves and even independently continue technological progress. At this point, Capitalism is absolutely dead. Do we now let the machines do our stuff for free, or still insist on making money and let the billions of jobless starve or kill each other to death?

Adam. The 'first man'?

old dude

the village i--o--t--

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Active Member

old dude

Active Member

old dude

old dude

Active Member

the village i--o--t--

Well-Known Member

GODWITHUS

Well-Known Member

the village i--o--t--

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

the village i--o--t--

Similar threads