Was away for a spell.
Where were we?
Getting back on track here so bear with me.
Adam is factual.
Paul knew there was a time that Adam was alone.
The two accounts of Genesis in harmony.
Adam formed from nonliving.
Eve created from living, Adam.
We know by Luke 3:23 that Adam was factual for if he wasn't then where would the myth end and the factual begin? Adam had children, the bible tells us that. Those children began the geneology of the "man" Jesus Himself.
Therefore Adam was real since we can trace Jesus back to Adam. Jesus wasn't born through a myth.
I know some posted that they believe Adam was indeed real so don't mind me. I'm just getting some thoughts focused.
Oh, by the way. I think it's pretty cool that a woman has one more set of ribs than a man does. I'm not insinuating anything by that, I just think it's pretty cool.
1 Tim 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
gluadys said:
How does Paul's reference to a myth require it to be history? Do you think Paul did not notice that in Gen. 1:26-27 Adam was not formed first?
Again the assumption is made that it is in fact a myth..
"Paul's reference to a myth".
"
require" assumes something needs to be done, an action, supporting the first assumption.
Another assumption is that Paul was using the King James version of the Old Testament. (impossible)
Here's what I mean by that.
I might need some help here in understanding a hebrew word like wayuitser (root: yatsar)
Adam149 if you're around I could use some help I think
You seem good at hebrew translation.
Anyway..
As far as I can gather that word could very well mean "had formed". It's still past tense but there's something about the Hebrew language that it may be taken as "formed" or "had formed".
At any rate the verse also reads as:
"And out of the ground the LORD God
had formed every beast of the field...."
I also think Paul not only noticed it but knew it. So the two are in harmony.
gluadys said:
So evolution agrees with Gen. 1:26-27 instead of with the second creation story. In Genesis 1 man and woman are created together in the SAME manner.
|v26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
|v27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
him; male and female created he them.
(OldT:Genesis 1:26-27)
Throughout the verses God mentions only man until the very end and even makes that point with "him", not
her or
both but says "created he
him". Then He follows with "created he
them". Notice the placement of "
them", again an overview
. God makes that distinction AFTER He created "him". I certainly see no contradiction between the two accounts of Genesis.
And again focus on the verse... "in the image of God created he him
; male and female created he them.
It reads, "in the image of God created he him"
semicolon *pause*
then continues, "male and female created he them."
Gen 1:18-23 fills in for the semicolon, the pause, in greater detail.
I think someone already pointed out that one account is an overview while the other fills in the details.
gluadys said:
So evolution agrees with Gen. 1:26-27 instead of with the second creation story.
Take no offense here ok? I'm just very poor with words in sensitive areas. Please forgive me.
Here evolution is used first, the verse comes second. The motivation here is to fit the bible to evolution instead of looking to reconcile the two accounts of Genesis. The Word of God is "closed", a book unto it's own, requiring no outside input to support it. If there's a question concerning the bible then it's best to use the bible to answer the question or find the solution. For example, before I was saved I used to think "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was a contradiction to "Turn the other cheek". That is until God opened my eyes and I could understand what I was reading and used the bible to reconcile what I thought was a contradiction.
And I'm STILL learning that lesson (using the bible to answer biblical questions). It's like a never-ending learning curve. The bible has SO much to offer, SO much within itself that I honestly believe it's depth will never be reached. There's
always more, something missed, something unseen, something to learn.
gluadys said:
AS a myth it indicates nothing at all about history. That is the point. A myth is not historical. The people are not historical. The events are not historical
There is a perfectly good literary reason for the man to be alone (see above), but that does not mean there ever was an historical man who was literally alone.
And there are good theological reasons for the man to be alone. That still does not mean there was an historical man who was literally alone.
"
does not mean there was an historical man who was literally alone"
Seems that's the gist of the post.
It doesn't make sense that here's Adam, a real guy having children to begin the linage of Jesus and God would tell us things about him that aren't true. I can see Adam now, "Whatcha talkin' about God?"
Nah, J/K
Why would The Creator, who was also there, say Adam was alone if he wasn't? Myth or not the idea is still conveyed that Adam was alone. Adam was real so he was really alone.
1 Tim 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Why do you think that may be important? I know I asked that before but still... does that event, Eve being created after Adam, have any significance? And what is the significance of Eve being created from Adam and not from the ground as Adam was?
There's something to be said for why Adam was created from the ground and not just
POOF! ..."created". Each were created differently and for a reason.