Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Seriously speaking,you all really think the different races came from two people?
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.
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.
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.
Agreed. This does not mean that every statement in Genesis is a parallelism.
I'll leave the insulting to you. I've got the text on my side.
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?
When you claimed that 'asah really means "made visible" was I wrong in showing you that that is never a translation used for 'asah?
I would seriously consider getting your money back.
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.
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.”
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,
The ignorant of the Scriptures are buying the bag, just as they have bought the bag of the rapture theory.
That man is who we call "Adam". Adam was created for a purpose, even though all the other races did exist before him.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
The rest of your post is sour grapes, and belligerent self pity. I feel no need to respond.
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.
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.
The idea that all the races came from one blood just doesn't catch it.
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.....
@ Mark
Where do you think you were before birth?
Or do you think you became,after conception?
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.
The preexistence of souls? Seriously!?
Try Unorthodox Theology, LDS beliefs are regarded as non-christian in these forums.
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.....
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
Nope I'll just stick with scripture
Jeremiah 1:5
King James Version (KJV)
...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
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, Hugh Ross is a died in the wool Darwinian, nothing he says or thinks would contradict an atheistic materialist worldview....
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.
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....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?