Three Earth Ages

[Calminian]

Seriously speaking,you all really think the different races came from two people?

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,​

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, hebrew parallelism is found all throughout the Bible. Adam used it when he met his wife for the first time. But Genesis 1:26-27 is not hebrew parallelism in any way shape or form.

Yes it is.

Mark is there a particular scholar that you've come across that cites this as parallelism? I'm not even sure anyone agrees with you on this.

I can't believe your actually arguing something so obviously wrong for no apparent reason. The only point I make with that is that the creation of man was done 'bara' which completely rules out any chance of ancestors. I find your insistence that it's not a parallelism not only pedantic but utterly pointless to say nothing of the fact that it's obviously wrong.

The ironic part is, if it were parallelism, it would hurt our case, not help it. It would reinforce that "make" and "create" are parallel terms, the very thing you're arguing against.

It's a parallelism dude, it's repetition for the sake of emphasis. Bara is used once in Genesis 1:1 for the creation of the universe, once in Gen 1:21 for the creation of life and three times in Gen 1:27 for the creation of man.

Agreed. This does not mean that every statement in Genesis is a parallelism.

Round around he goes...

I'll leave the insulting to you. I've got the text on my side.

No actually it's not.

Hmmm. So when you said that if God wanted to speak of the creation of something he would not have used 'asah, was I wrong in actually showing you a passage in the very same chapter, where 'asah was used as a term for creation?

Your argument is spiraling out of control dude, better pull up.

When you claimed that 'asah really means "made visible" was I wrong in showing you that that is never a translation used for 'asah?

Depending on the context, in at least one instance it does.

I would seriously consider getting your money back.

Right, because I could learn everything I need to know about the Scriptures from you.

Well, I guess Answers in Genesis, CMI, ICR, Apologetics Press, Creation Today, etc. are all just mockers, because they agree with me on this, and they Genesis 1 is an example of hebrew parallelism. Hebrew parallelism is very easy to recognize and is found all over the Bible, even in Genesis. Translations will ping it out by arranging the text in in a poetic way.

Wow! I had never seen that before, AIG really does say that the sun was created day 4. I had no idea, I haven't found the creationist sites to be that reliable for expositions so I never thought to look. To be honest I don't care either way, the text allows for minutes or billions of years. It's rather curious that God would make the heavens and the earth and nothing else. Just the earth floating around in space all by itself for three days.

Your only the second or third person to bring it up, I've always dismissed it as inconsistent with a sound exegesis of the text. I came to that conclusion years ago and never took the arguments from geology and old earth cosmology seriously for that reason. Either way the age of the earth is irrelevant.

BTW, here is the first instance of hebrew parallelism in the Bible, spoken by Adam himself on day-1.

Gen. 2:23 And Adam said:

“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”​

I'm puzzled that you are so determined to argue an obviously wrong point about a rather obvious literary feature so I did some looking around:

Verse 27. - So (or and) God created (bars, as in vers. 1, 21, q.v.) man (literally; the Adam referred to in ver. 26) in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. The threefold repetition of the term "created" should be observed as a significant negation of modern evolution theories as to the descent of man, and an emphatic proclamation of his Divine original. The threefold parallelism of the members of this verse is likewise suggestive, as Umbreit, Ewald, and Delitzsch remark, of the jubilation with which the writer contemplates the crowning work of Elohim's creative word. (Pulpit Commentary)

the creation of man being celebrated in three parallel clauses. The distinction drawn between אתו (in the image of God created He him) and אתם (as man and woman created He them) must not be overlooked. The word אתם, which indicates that God created the man and woman as two human beings (Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament) Bible Hub Commentaries​

It's a parallelism dude and there is no reason to argue otherwise, it just means the same thing is repeated three times for the sake of emphasis. When it does it three times with a word with such a profoundly significant meaning it's meant to drive the main point of the text home in dramatic fashion.

I was at the library today and almost looked it up in the commentaries but I remembered you said Bible study tools were a waste of money anyway so I didn't bother.

 

[n2thelight]

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,
​

Acts 17:26 "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;"

It is time to sharpen up, and pay attention to Paul. First of all, the word "blood" as used here is not in any of the original manuscripts, and even some of the more liberal translators caught this Kenite translation. The Word "one" is in reference to the dust of the earth that Adam was formed from. In the Greek it is "heis" and sometimes translators use the form "tis" which changes the meaning completely. This word blood is just not there, for God created all the races just as they are, kind after their kind. God created all the races on the sixth day, and on the seventh day, He rested.

In Genesis 1:26 it was on the sixth day; "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." "

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him, male and female created He them." This is all the races, except Adam, meaning "ruddy complected".

Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Then after God rested on the seventh day, on the eight day God created, as it is written in the Hebrew, " `eth-`Ha`adham" which is to say "the man". That man is who we call "Adam". Adam was created for a purpose, even though all the other races did exist before him.

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." So we see that the Adamic race, was set aside to till the ground, and be the farmers.

After God created "the Adam" He created more animals, and brought those animals to Adam and had him name the animals and use them for his use.

Genesis 2:19, 20 "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name there of ." [19] "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." [20]
The idea that all the races came from one blood just doesn't catch it.

Four thousand years is a short time for that to happen when there is not one example ever that any species has produced anything but its own species. What the eveloutionist has ended up with is a bag full of chain links, with not one link connected, and we are suppose to buy his bag.The ignorant of the Scriptures are buying the bag, just as they have bought the bag of the rapture theory.

The King James translators didn't even put the word "blood" in italics to warn the reader that it was added, and it is for this reason that I encourage you to have a "Companion study Bible" and a numbered Strongs concordance that is numbered to a Greek and Hebrew dictionary. It is up to you to seek out the truth, and check out what others say, and that you do not let others do your interpretation for you. With these tools of the Scriptures you can brake the Word of God back to the original text, and understand exactly what God has said through these writers. God created each race seperate from the others, and He looked and all of them were good, and God was proud of each. So lets look at what the true translation should be of this verse.

"And have made of one dust, of the same soil, made He all nations [This word "Nations" inthe Greek is Ethnos] of men for to dwell on the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation."

In the Greek is "ethnos", meaning tribes and races. It is the ethonic peoples of today, the Asian, the African, the Caucasian, and so on. He made us all from the same soil, meaning our flesh bodies are from the dust of the earth. It is God that has set the kings and empires up to rule, and given the seasons and times for them to fall, and be done away with. It is also God that determines what what bounderies each of those peoples and nations will live within.

acts17

 

[mark kennedy]

The ignorant of the Scriptures are buying the bag, just as they have bought the bag of the rapture theory.

Are you aware that the 'rapture' is just another word for the resurrection?

That man is who we call "Adam". Adam was created for a purpose, even though all the other races did exist before him.

No there were not other races created before Adam, the New Testament witness makes it clear that Adam was the first parent of humanity.

 

[n2thelight]

Are you aware that the 'rapture' is just another word for the resurrection?



No there were not other races created before Adam, the New Testament witness makes it clear that Adam was the first parent of humanity.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him, male and female created He them."

Let me ask you a question,who was the last Man Adam?

Was He(Christ) the last Man?

I Corinthians 15:45 "And so it is written, "The first man Adam was made a living soul;" the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."

Oh and the rapture,I prefer to call it our gathering,as Paul states,which dos'nt happen until the 7th trump,after the tribulation...But I like your word for it,goes well with something eles Ive posted on these forums

 

[Calminian]

...I can't believe your actually arguing something so obviously wrong for no apparent reason. The only point I make with that is that the creation of man was done 'bara' which completely rules out any chance of ancestors. I find your insistence that it's not a parallelism not only pedantic but utterly pointless to say nothing of the fact that it's obviously wrong.

But Mark you keep harping on that fact that you're quoting scholars, and I'm just quoting scripture. Well here's your chance. I don't think anyone of any particular notability believes Geneses 1 contains hebrew parallelism. Only skeptics and liberals make this claim.

I don't think this is a case of restatement for emphasis. All that you have there is a chronology of events. God said lets do this, then God did it. There's no parallel, and for most part, everyone agrees with me. Not that I care, but you complain I'm not quoting enough scholars. Well, where are your scholars?

Here's a good article on hebrew parallelism you should check out.

Parallelism in Hebrew Poetry Demonstrates a Major Error in the Hermeneutic of Many Old-Earth Creationists

It's point by point on what hebrew parallelism is, how to recognize it, and whether it can be applied to Genesis 1 as you insist.

It's a parallelism dude,

Round around he goes...

No actually it's not.

Your argument is spiraling out of control dude, better pull up.

Depending on the context, in at least one instance it does.

Right, because I could learn everything I need to know about the Scriptures from you.

Wow! I had never seen that before, AIG really does say that the sun was created day 4. I had no idea, I haven't found the creationist sites to be that reliable for expositions so I never thought to look. To be honest I don't care either way, the text allows for minutes or billions of years. It's rather curious that God would make the heavens and the earth and nothing else. Just the earth floating around in space all by itself for three days.

I'm puzzled that you are so determined to argue an obviously wrong point about a rather obvious literary feature so I did some looking around:

It's a parallelism dude and there is no reason to argue otherwise, it just means the same thing is repeated three times for the sake of emphasis.

The rest of your post is sour grapes, and belligerent self pity. I feel no need to respond.

 

[mark kennedy]

Genesis 1:27 is a three fold synonymous parallelism, it just means it says the same thing three times.

Lowth listed three primary types of parallelism: synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic (Lucas 2003, pp. 67–68). These are sometimes called similar thoughts, contrasting thoughts, and additional thoughts, respectively (McQuilkin 1992, p. 205) Parallelism in Hebrew Poetry Demonstrates a Major Error in the Hermeneutic of Many Old-Earth Creationists​

But Mark you keep harping on that fact that you're quoting scholars, and I'm just quoting scripture. Well here's your chance. I don't think anyone of any particular notability believes Geneses 1 contains hebrew parallelism. Only skeptics and liberals make this claim.

Just quoting Scripture huh, then why aren't you quoting this one?

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:27)​

Ask anyone who is ever debated me, I'm anything but a skeptic or a liberal. A parallelism is nothing more then the same thing repeated in other words.

Mickelsen stated that stair-like parallelism, 'is a fascinating kind of parallelism which utilizes meaningful repetition to the utmost. A part of the first line is repeated while the newer elements build up to a climax'
(Mickelsen 1963, p. 326).

Psalm 29:1–2 displays this stair-like approach.

Give unto the Lord, O you mighty ones,
Give unto the Lord glory and strength.
Give unto the Lord the glory due to His name;​

Parallelism in Hebrew Poetry

You have a real problem seeing the obvious. The climax, in case you missed it is, God created 'bara' both Adam and Eve. The use of 'bara' means that God brought them into existence which is the strongest possible word in the Hebrew for a miracle.

I don't think this is a case of restatement for emphasis. All that you have there is a chronology of events. God said lets do this, then God did it. There's no parallel, and for most part, everyone agrees with me. Not that I care, but you complain I'm not quoting enough scholars. Well, where are your scholars?

Here's one and I've quoted several others:

The creation of man being celebrated in three parallel clauses. The distinction drawn between אתו (in the image of God created He him) and אתם (as man and woman created He them) must not be overlooked. The word אתם, which indicates that God created the man and woman as two human beings (Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament) Bible Hub Commentaries​

You think by parallelism I mean some kind of figurative language? That's flagrantly false. The reason is that 'bara' is the verb for each line. I don't know what you think a parallelism is or what the significance of one being used in Genesis 1:27 but it's obviously a parallelism. It's not my fault if you haven't bothered to discern the difference between a parallelism and a parable. It's not a parallel of events, it's just a repeated expression, the statements 'parallel' one another, that's all it means. I don't know if your doing this purposely or you really don't know what your talking about but you're statement is grossly misrepresenting what a Hebrew parallelism is and what I mean when I call it a parallelism.

Here's a good article on hebrew parallelism you should check out.

It's point by point on what hebrew parallelism is, how to recognize it, and whether it can be applied to Genesis 1 as you insist.

one of the greatest debates in the modern church can be resolved by realizing that Genesis 1 is not poetic in nature because it does not bear the hallmarks of Hebrew parallelism. Students of the Bible would do well to study parallelism, the basic structure of Hebrew poetry. Parallelism in Hebrew Poetry​

So that's it, you think if it's poetic that means it's not an historical narrative? That is the exact opposite of why a Hebrew parallelism is being used:

The threefold repetition of the term "created" should be observed as a significant negation of modern evolution theories as to the descent of man, and an emphatic proclamation of his Divine original. The threefold parallelism of the members of this verse is likewise suggestive, as Umbreit, Ewald, and Delitzsch remark, of the jubilation with which the writer contemplates the crowning work of Elohim's creative word. Pulpit Commentary ​

The fact that it's poetic doesn't mean it's figurative, it's not parallel in the same way a parable is. Parallel in this sense just means the threefold repetitions are saying the same thing. If it were figurative there would be something in the immediate context, usually a 'like' or 'as', I have never suggested that Genesis 1 is figurative.

I have debated many evolutionists and theistic evolutionists but this is the first time a Creationist literally twisted my meaning to be the exact opposite of what I intended. Frankly I'm disgusted.

The rest of your post is sour grapes, and belligerent self pity. I feel no need to respond.

I've seen some blatant errors but this one takes the cake. The reason a parallelism is used is to emphasis the miraculous nature of the creation of Adam and Eve.

Synonymous parallelism is present when the notion of the A-line is repeated in the B-line.

A-line: Pay attention, my people, to my teaching,
B-line: Be attentive to the words of my mouth. (Psalm 78.1)​

Westminster Bible Poetry

What your saying is wrong, the only question is whether or not it's intentional.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

It is time to sharpen up, and pay attention to Paul. First of all, the word "blood" as used here is not in any of the original manuscripts, and even some of the more liberal translators caught this Kenite translation. The Word "one" is in reference to the dust of the earth that Adam was formed from. In the Greek it is "heis" and sometimes translators use the form "tis" which changes the meaning completely. This word blood is just not there, for God created all the races just as they are, kind after their kind. God created all the races on the sixth day, and on the seventh day, He rested.

It's in Texus Recepticus:

And hath made of one blood (G129 - haima) 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; (Acts 17:26)​

The NIV omits 'blood' but it in no way changes the meaning:

From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. (Acts 17:26 NIV)​

It is never suggested that God made different races but that all races came from one man. The omission of 'blood' does nothing to change the meaning.

Then after God rested on the seventh day, on the eight day God created, as it is written in the Hebrew, " `eth-`Ha`adham" which is to say "the man". That man is who we call "Adam". Adam was created for a purpose, even though all the other races did exist before him.

Nonsense, it says nothing in Genesis 1:27-29 of other races.

The idea that all the races came from one blood just doesn't catch it.

The idea is that all races came from one man, try reading what your talking about.

 

[n2thelight]

It's in Texus Recepticus:

And hath made of one blood (G129 - haima) 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; (Acts 17:26)
​

The NIV omits 'blood' but it in no way changes the meaning:

From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. (Acts 17:26 NIV)
​

It is never suggested that God made different races but that all races came from one man. The omission of 'blood' does nothing to change the meaning.



Nonsense, it says nothing in Genesis 1:27-29 of other races.



The idea is that all races came from one man, try reading what your talking about.

All races did not come from one man,just dos'nt work

Genesis 1:27"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."

The above is not Adam and Eve.....

Ive read it,and this is how I see it.....

Up until now I would say that this has pretty much been a very civil exchange of views...Can we please keep it that way

I did'nt start this thread as a debate,rather as a way to show how the Word of God comes together when one understands the beginning....

Chapter two is not a recap of one,that's my point.....

If one dos'nt understand the beginning they won't understand the end.....

 

[n2thelight]

@ Mark

Where do you think you were before birth?

Or do you think you became,after conception?

 

[mark kennedy]

All races did not come from one man,just dos'nt work

Genesis 1:27"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."

That is the clear testimony of Scripture, you either believe it or you don't.

The above is not Adam and Eve.....

Yes it is.

Ive read it,and this is how I see it.....

Up until now I would say that this has pretty much been a very civil exchange of views...Can we please keep it that way

It depends, what kind of a conversation are you trying to have here?

I did'nt start this thread as a debate,rather as a way to show how the Word of God comes together when one understands the beginning....

You deny the clear testimony of Scripture, then insist on a civil discussion and base that on some nebulous understanding of the 'beginning'. I understand the beginning just fine, In the beginning God created Adam and Eve was created from him. That makes Adam the first parent of humanity which is exactly how New Testament speaks of him every time he is mentioned.

Chapter two is not a recap of one,that's my point.....

Recap? You lost me...

If one dos'nt understand the beginning they won't understand the end.....

That's right, Genesis 1 and Revelations 22 are mirror images of one another.

@ Mark

Where do you think you were before birth?

The preexistence of souls? Seriously!?
Try Unorthodox Theology, LDS beliefs are regarded as non-christian in these forums.

Or do you think you became,after conception?

I'm strictly pro-life, zygotes are living souls as far as I'm concerned. What kind of a question is that and what on earth could it possibly have to do with Origins Theology?

 

[n2thelight]

Therein lies our diffrences I don't see chapter 1 as Adam and Eve...I can't change,and neither do I suspect will you.....

You deny the clear testimony of Scripture, then insist on a civil discussion and base that on some nebulous understanding of the 'beginning'. I understand the beginning just fine, In the beginning God created Adam and Eve was created from him. That makes Adam the first parent of humanity which is exactly how New Testament speaks of him every time he is mentioned.

That's not what the scripture says,we can screw civil if you want,it's all good with me...Fact remains Male and Female created He THEM.

The preexistence of souls? Seriously!?
Try Unorthodox Theology, LDS beliefs are regarded as non-christian in these forums.

Nope I'll just stick with scripture

Jeremiah 1:5

King James Version (KJV)


5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

 

[mark kennedy]

Therein lies our diffrences I don't see chapter 1 as Adam and Eve...I can't change,and neither do I suspect will you.....

I know what the Scriptures teach and the Scriptures teach that Adam was the first parent of humanity. Arguments to the contrary are opposed to the clear testimony of Scripture and your right, it's not likely anything we talk about here will change my mind.

That's not what the scripture says,we can screw civil if you want,it's all good with me...Fact remains Male and Female created He

I think this is what your trying to quote:

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:27)​

That's what the Scriptures teach and that man was called Adam.

Nope I'll just stick with scripture

Jeremiah 1:5

King James Version (KJV)

Yea I'm familiar with the text:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jer. 1:5 NIV)​

That was while he was in the womb, John leaped for joy in the womb of Elizabeth when she encountered Mary being pregnant with Jesus. Your point?

If your trying to sneak in some preexistence of souls doctrine I'm telling you up front, your not going to like how this ends.

 

[Calminian]

...Ask anyone who is ever debated me, I'm anything but a skeptic or a liberal. A parallelism is nothing more then the same thing repeated in other words.....

Mark, I don't see you as a liberal, nor do I see Hugh Ross as a liberal. You both just trust in man's revelations ahead of God's in some small areas. You're not non-concordists, though, as say a Paul Seely or Denis Lamoureux, you're just older earthers who attempted to reconcile the Bible with modern naturalism by offering up some reinterpretations. But I think those reinterpretations are easily refuted. But both you and Ross claim your interpretations to be historical and literal.

As far as hebrew parallelism, you're just dead wrong, and don't understand what it is. It's not just any place in scripture where you find two sentences that have parallel words. There are distinct markings that reveal it to us. I sent you an article on this subject. If you'll read it it will help you a great deal, and show you why Genesis 1 should be excluded.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, I don't see you as a liberal, nor do I see Hugh Ross as a liberal. You both just trust in man's revelations ahead of God's in some small areas.

Hang on, no I don't! I don't care how old the earth is because the Scriptures never say and no doctrine is tied to it. I have the same problem with you I have with Theistic Evolutionists, you never get past the first verse of the Bible with them.

You're not non-concordists, though, as say a Paul Seely or Denis Lamoureux, you're just older earthers who attempted to reconcile the Bible with modern naturalism by offering up some reinterpretations. But I think those reinterpretations are easily refuted. But both you and Ross claim your interpretations to be historical and literal.

Nonsense, Hugh Ross is a died in the wool Darwinian, nothing he says or thinks would contradict an atheistic materialist worldview. All I'm saying is that geology and cosmology are irrelevant which by the way, was Galileo's argument before the Inquisition. Whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth has nothing to do with the Scriptures. The same goes for geology and cosmology, it might be billions of years old and it might be thousands, so what?

As far as hebrew parallelism

You've got to be a TE sock puppet, there is no reason to keep correcting errors that don't exist unless you just want me to argue against old earth cosmology. Something I've noticed, you have no interest in.

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. (Gen. 1:27)​

Three times it's repeated, just slightly paraphrased each time. That's all the term parallelism means. It just means it's repeated 3 times.

It's not just any place in scripture where you find two sentences that have parallel words. There are distinct markings that reveal it to us. I sent you an article on this subject. If you'll read it it will help you a great deal, and show you why Genesis 1 should be excluded.

Nonsense, I read the article and a several others, it's a literary feature, nothing more. You are making the false assumption that if it's a parallelism that makes it poetic, that if it's poetic it must be figurative, if it's figurative it must be fictional. You're pedantic article said nothing of the sort and I get really tired of being condescended to by people who don't bother to study what they are pontificating about.

It just means the lines have parallel meanings, it's a contrived term that is used to describe a Hebrew literary feature.

1. So God created mankind in his own image,
2. in the image of God he created them;
3. male and female he created them.

Three lines with parallel meanings, thus a parallelism. The fact that there is a parallelism for this indicates that it's the heart of the emphasis. The fact that it uses 'bara' three times indicates that man was creation by God and it's diametrically opposed to Darwinian naturalistic assumptions.

You know what I think, I think you just want me to ignore creation as doctrine and focus on arguing against natural science. That's the only thing that makes any sense because every time you've corrected me it's been pointless and unsupported.

The argument your making is called an ad hominem fallacy, which means your arguing against me instead of for your position. I've never seen a Creationist do that before, it makes me wonder what your trying to accomplish.

 

[Calminian]

....Nonsense, Hugh Ross is a died in the wool Darwinian, nothing he says or thinks would contradict an atheistic materialist worldview....

I can't believe I'm actually going to defend Hugh Ross. This is going to be painful.

Mark, Ross denies evolution, but accepts deep time, just as you do. In fact, I don't think he cares about it either, but sees an option for deep time in his selective translation of Genesis. He a classic progressive day-age creationist. He rails on evolution all the time, yet doesn't believe scripture is specific about when the actually beginning of creation was. Sound familiar?

You've got to be a TE sock puppet, there is no reason to keep correcting errors that don't exist unless you just want me to argue against old earth cosmology. Something I've noticed, you have no interest in.

Again, I have the facts, so don't need to mark you insult for insult. That's one of the advantages of starting with scripture.

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. (Gen. 1:27)​

Three times it's repeated, just slightly paraphrased each time. That's all the term parallelism means. It just means it's repeated 3 times.

Actually classical hebrew parallelism overwhelming comes in dual parallelisms. Mark, I can't believe you're falling for this stuff. But this is the type of hermeneutical gymnastics the the gap theory enables. It's a nightmarish way of reading the Bible.

God says, let's do X, then God did X, is not parallelism. Please do yourself a favor and read up on this stuff.

Nonsense, I read the article and a several others, it's a literary feature, nothing more. You are making the false assumption that if it's a parallelism that makes it poetic, that if it's poetic it must be figurative....

Huh? Mark do you ever just think things through before typing. Hebrew parallelism is for certain a poetic expression, but does not make something figurative. The very first instance of parallelism is Adam speaking of his wife. There's nothing figurative about it. Dude, breathe. You're going off on tangents. Read carefully what I'm writing.

 

[n2thelight]

Defining “Man” in the Bible Comparing ‘Adam in Hebrew

In English the Hebrew word “‘adam” is translated to mean “man, men, and mankind”. To any who have never encountered or studied Hebrew, this fits perfectly in explaining the man named Adam in the Garden of Eden. In comparing the use of the word for man (‘adam) in Genesis 1 and Gensis 2, the meaning in each case requires a closer look for fuller understanding.


In numerous places within the King James Version of the Bible the full essence and meaning of some Hebrew and Greek words are lost in the translation. Some individual words were understandably translated as a single word in English, and yet a full paragraph much like the definition in a dictionary would be required to get the exact meaning. Variations of these unique words used in extended phrases can add to the confusion. This is true of the Hebrew word for “man” as follows:


1. Without the Hebrew article or particle preceding the word ‘adam, it can mean man, men, or mankind.
2. When preceded with the article to become the phrase haa-‘adam, it means the man.
3. Extend the Hebrew phrase with the article and particle and ‘eth haa-‘adam means this specific man.


Sixth Day Creation Adam and the Other Adam in Eden



Understanding that the word man appears 2,740 times in the Bible and it was translated from the Hebrew word “‘adam” in the Old Testament, comparing ‘adam in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 reveals a truth that many Christians may not realize. Until you take each occurrence of “man” back to the original phrases in which they appear, most casual readers of the Bible will miss the difference between the use of the word “man” in Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2.


Contrary to what many Christians learn from their youth, not everyone in this world is a descendant of Adam and Eve!


The mention of man in the sixth day creation of Genesis 1 refers to mankind which includes men and women, and all the races. Mankind (plural) as translated to “man” (singular) and created on the sixth day were hunters and gatherers, and there’s plenty of historical evidence going back long before Adam in Eden. The male named Adam in Genesis 2 was “formed, not “created” (KJV) in the Garden of Eden, and began before or around 4,000 years B.C., or at least 6,000 years ago.


Consider the following verses, and note the mention of male and female, plus the plural “them” in Genesis 1:27.


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. Genesis 1:26 (KJV)


The humans of the sixth day creation were ordered to be fruitful and multiply, which they did as proven with carbon dating of pottery that shows Chinese civilization began more than 15,000 years ago. Further archaeological evidence exists for almost every continent with ancient civilizations in Africa, Australia, and the Americas. Antarctica is an exception.


Special Note: In Genesis 1:26 above, it states in “our image” and in Genesis 1:27 below it states “His own image”, so there is no denying when you look upon the face of another human being, you are seeing a likeness created similar to God and his angels (plural because it states “our image”). We are all His precious and equal children who should, as Christ taught, “love one another”. Let’s continue with an explanation of the next verse.


So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. Genesis 1:27 (KJV)


Verse 1:27 confirms what I stated earlier that the creation of mankind on the sixth day was plural, and included male and female human beings. These predate Adam and Eve who were formed after God rested on the seventh day.



Adam and Eve of the Garden of Eden



The ‘eth haa-‘adam in Hebrew of Genesis 2:7 is not “man or mankind” (‘adam), but the specific man, Adam, as follows:


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. Genesis 2:7 (KJV)


It’s important to understand why God formed Adam, and then Eve as a helpmate. Until then, mankind lived as hunters and gatherers and ate what grew wild. In Genesis 2:5 Adam the gardener, or farmer, was needed to “till the soil” for growing and cultivating food and raising domesticated livestock.


More importantly, it was through the seed of Adam and Eve that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, was to be born as part of God’s master plan following the downfall of Satan.


Closing Evidence About Mankind Created on the Sixth Day



As more evidence of the sixth day creation of mankind, and to answer what may perplex some Bible students, read Genesis 4:16 and 4:17 about Cain being driven away and going to the land of Nod after he slew his brother, Abel. This place was east of Eden, but the exact location is unknown from historical records relating to any present maps. Verse 17 talks about his wife who conceived and bore Enoch. He left Eden and found a wife in Nod which is further evidence of mankind and a population outside of the Garden of Eden.



As a final note, I remind readers that my studies of the Bible referencing the languages of the original manuscripts cannot cover every book, chapter, and verse. My purpose is to share what I learn from selected verses to encourage people to study and stay in His Word to begin knowing God, and form their opinions as the Holy Spirit guides them.

Study of Adam in Genesis Lesson 02