Were Adam and Eve the first?

[wisdomseeker]

I want to thank everyone for thier replys even though I am still a little confused. I am currently researching the bible right now to see if I can come up with more answers. Or perhaps it is a question I will have anwsered when my time comes. I would also like to apologise to anyone I may have offended regarding the ethic background of Adam and Eve.

 

[GenemZ]

Second Isaiah.

On who's authority do you attempt to base that?

Matthew said that there was only one Isaiah.

Matthew 3:3 niv
"This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.' "

Matthew did not say.......

Madcow 3:3
"This is he who was spoken of through one of the prophets, Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.' "

You think Matthew was misinformed?

And? Jesus was handed the scroll of Isaiah? Or, the scroll of the Isaiahs?

Luke 4:17 niv
"The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:"

John, also agreed, that there was only one prophet Isaiah....


John 12:38 niv
"This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
"Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"

And, there are lot's more examples throughout the New Testament that says there was only one Isaiah. But? What did they know? They did not even believe in evolution as being the means of God creating life. Ignorant bunch. Weren't they?

Grace and peace, the 5th GeneZ

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Matthew said that there was only one Isaiah.

Matthew 3:3 niv
"This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.' "

Matthew did not say.......

Madcow 3:3
"This is he who was spoken of through one of the prophets, Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.' "

You think Matthew was misinformed?

Let's take a look at a parallel account:

Mark 1:2-3: "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, 'Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." ' "

This quote is actually from Malachi 3:1 followed by Isaiah 40:3. And yet, Mark attributes the whole thing to one person: Isaiah the prophet (not Isaiah the prophet and Malachi the prophet). A similar thing happens in Matthew 27:9-10 where a quotation of Zechariah 11:12-13 and an allusion to Jeremiah 19:1-13 is attributed entirely to "Jeremiah the prophet".

If Mark can refer to Malachi and Isaiah together as "Isaiah the prophet", and Matthew can refer to Zechariah and Jeremiah together as "Jeremiah the prophet", then on what grounds can you claim that Matthew 3:3 and similar references rule out multiple authors of Isaiah?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Let's take a look at a parallel account:

Mark 1:2-3: "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, 'Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." ' "

This quote is actually from Malachi 3:1 followed by Isaiah 40:3. And yet, Mark attributes the whole thing to one person: Isaiah the prophet (not Isaiah the prophet and Malachi the prophet). A similar thing happens in Matthew 27:9-10 where a quotation of Zechariah 11:12-13 and an allusion to Jeremiah 19:1-13 is attributed entirely to "Jeremiah the prophet".

If Mark can refer to Malachi and Isaiah together as "Isaiah the prophet", and Matthew can refer to Zechariah and Jeremiah together as "Jeremiah the prophet", then on what grounds can you claim that Matthew 3:3 and similar references rule out multiple authors of Isaiah?

in addition it is a quotation from the LXX not the Hebrew Bible. The reason we know this, is that in the LXX the voice is in the wilderness, in the Hebrew the place of the voice is unknown, the path is to be made straight in the wilderness. In the Hebrew it is two clauses which are in Hebrew poetic parallelism style, in the LXX the voice is explicitly in the wilderness, perhaps Mark quotes the LXX since he desires to prove that the voice is that of John the Baptist who is himself in the wilderness.

which just goes to show that almost nothing is as simple as it first appears to be.
....

 

[GenemZ]

Let's take a look at a parallel account:

Mark 1:2-3: "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, 'Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." ' "

This quote is actually from Malachi 3:1 followed by Isaiah 40:3. And yet, Mark attributes the whole thing to one person: Isaiah the prophet (not Isaiah the prophet and Malachi the prophet). A similar thing happens in Matthew 27:9-10 where a quotation of Zechariah 11:12-13 and an allusion to Jeremiah 19:1-13 is attributed entirely to "Jeremiah the prophet".

I may quote a verse in Romans for something. And, Romans may be quoting a passage in the OT. So? Must I use all the parts of the Bible to make such a quote? I simply state, "as found in Romans, so and so"...

Likewise, Mark only quoted one person who said those words. And, Prophets did not always quote one another even though it may appear that way to us. Both got the same exact revelation directly from God. They were not always quoting one another. The fact that this could happen is to reveal that revelation of the Prophets was not from their own private interpretation.

And. your point was? What? I showed how the New Testatment writers all referred to Isaiah as "the prophet," Never, one of the prophets, Isaiah.

And, your point was? Smoke and mirrors, perhaps?

Grace and lots of patience, GeneZ

 

[Bushido216]

I think his point, genez, was that Mark and Matthew were referring to OT writings by two separate individuals as being from one person. This is different from your example because neither Mark nor Matthew were quoting a quote, but were referring to two, distinct passages and books.

 

[GenemZ]

I think his point, genez, was that Mark and Matthew were referring to OT writings by two separate individuals as being from one person. This is different from your example because neither Mark nor Matthew were quoting a quote, but were referring to two, distinct passages and books.

If that be the case. He failed to make his point.

"Arguing with idiots is watching them bang their head on the rock."


In Christ, GeneZ

 

[Marshall Janzen]

And. your point was? What? I showed how the New Testatment writers all referred to Isaiah as "the prophet," Never, one of the prophets, Isaiah.

And, your point was? Smoke and mirrors, perhaps?

My point was that you're excavating something from the text that isn't necessarily there. New Testament authors exercised a degree of fluidity in how they attributed quotes, as I showed, and your point requires such fluidity to be impossible.

Attributions to "the prophet Isaiah" no more rule out multiple authors of Isaiah than attributions to "Jeremiah the prophet" rule out a reference to both Zechariah and Jeremiah.

"Arguing with idiots is watching them bang their head on the rock."


In Christ, GeneZ

There seems to be a discontinuity between the first line and the second line.

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

First let me qualify that the member who originated this thread is not me.

According to Jewish Mysticism, Adam's first wife was Lilith. Not Eve. (Do a search on the internet. If you something to support my statement. There are probably hunreds. Or you could read the Kabballah)

I won't add more to the quandry about ethnic differences in humans. Someone already posted what I would have. I'll only add that all human beings are almost identical at the gene level. At least this is was has been reported by those who would know better than myself. Furthermore, I believe, as do many more qualified to make this judgement, that the origin of man was in Africa.

Genesis of the English Bible is wonderfully written. And many people believe it is "the truth" and the "only" authoritive writing on the origen of mankind. But, in truth, it is not all that is written regarding the subject. (obviously) I urge you to study the Hebrew texts. If you are anything like I am...you'll find them answering a great many of your questions like these that come from studying the Bible.

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

Adam means mankind, both male and female. Something else to think about.

 

[GenemZ]

My point was that you're excavating something from the text that isn't necessarily there.

...."isn't necessarily there? "

I see we are working with absolutes, now? Then, why do you speak as if it were?

New Testament authors exercised a degree of fluidity in how they attributed quotes, as I showed, and your point requires such fluidity to be impossible.

No Jew saw multiple Isaiahs... Neither, do they today. Having been born a Jew, and brought up a Jew until I believed in Christ, I would have to say that there is simlply a theory out there for everybody who needs their ears tickled. And, there is!

2 Timothy 4:3 niv
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

Attributions to "the prophet Isaiah" no more rule out multiple authors of Isaiah than attributions to "Jeremiah the prophet" rule out a reference to both Zechariah and Jeremiah.

I believe you are speaking in reference as to how Jews used to speak of a certain prophet to reveal what section of the Torah another prophet can also be found. Before the creation of chapter and verse this was a means to point to a section of Torah. It did not mean that one prophet was also under another name.

But, I wish I knew what you are talking about. Apparently, someone taught you a theory, and now all you are doing is proclaiming a conclusion. And, at the same time, leaving out all that is needed to draw such a conclusion. Please, no web addresses to wade through. This is something you should be able to explain easy enough, since you brought it up. Right?

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[Marshall Janzen]

...."isn't necessarily there? "

I see we are working with absolutes, now? Then, why do you speak as if it were?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

No Jew saw multiple Isaiahs... Neither, do they today. Having been born a Jew, and brought up a Jew until I believed in Christ, I would have to say that there is simlply a theory out there for everybody who needs their ears tickled. And, there is!

That isn't what I was discussing. You made a claim that references to "the prophet Isaiah" prove that there was only one prophet Isaiah. That is what I addressed, because it is faulty reasoning. The authorship of Isaiah would need to be established on other grounds.

Apparently, someone taught you a theory, and now all you are doing is proclaiming a conclusion. And, at the same time, leaving out all that is needed to draw such a conclusion. Please, no web addresses to wade through.

The authorship of Isaiah isn't something I've looked into. Until a year ago, I wasn't even aware of the various theories. I don't have an established opinion on the matter. I only commented based on your misuse of Matthew 3:3 and similar texts.

This is something you should be able to explain easy enough, since you brought it up. Right?

You mean Second and Third Isaiah? No, I didn't bring that up.

 

[GenemZ]

I have no idea what you mean by this.


That isn't what I was discussing. You made a claim that references to "the prophet Isaiah" prove that there was only one prophet Isaiah.

What? Prove to me there was only one Jesus? Can you? When asked that way? Would you wish to waste the energy over an issue that 99.9999% of believers would never question?

It is you who need to make your case. Not what has stood the test of thousands of years of acceptance. Jews never saw more than one Isaiah. You do? Well, sir?

It is you who need to make a case. The book of Isaiah is about no one other than the same Isaiah. But, then again. You need to explain yourself. Can you? It seems you are reluctant to do so, and wish to turn the tables on me. It is not I who hold to a novel concept. When I do (and have) I always oblige the others by showing categorically the reasons for my conclusion. Its easy when you know why you think what you think. You seem to be having a problem with this? Seems that way.....

That is what I addressed, because it is faulty reasoning. The authorship of Isaiah would need to be established on other grounds.

Not really. My parents are American. They tell me that there is only one nation of USA. Someone tells me different? Do they simply tell me my parents are wrong? And, that it up to me to prove there is only one USA? To me, sir... (I have better things to do!)

I have seen this type of critical thinking before in other areas. Its all diversionary and gets believer's minds distracted away from the true issues.

The authorship of Isaiah isn't something I've looked into. Until a year ago, I wasn't even aware of the various theories. I don't have an established opinion on the matter. I only commented based on your misuse of Matthew 3:3 and similar texts.

You don't have an established opinion, now? Eh? Then, don't go around using this theory as a means to make a point until it is established. OK?

You mean Second and Third Isaiah? No, I didn't bring that up.

I guess then, you jumped in at the wrong time, then.


Ohhhh well. Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

And, Prophets did not always quote one another even though it may appear that way to us. Both got the same exact revelation directly from God. They were not always quoting one another. The fact that this could happen is to reveal that revelation of the Prophets was not from their own private interpretation.

Since most of the prophets did not write down (or even dictate) their prophecies---Jeremiah is a notable exception---most prophecies were written at a later date after being handed on by word of mouth. The words of the prophets were treasured in memory, just as the words of Jesus were until they were put into writing.

The simplest and most likely reason for the same prophecy being found in two different books is not two identical revelations, nor one prophet quoting another, but writers attributing the same saying to two different prophets.

I showed how the New Testatment writers all referred to Isaiah as "the prophet," Never, one of the prophets, Isaiah.

No matter which of the prophets who contributed to the book of Isaiah, it was all combined in one book (or scroll). So no matter which prophet is being cited, it is "the prophet Isaiah". We still do the same when we introduce a reading from Isaiah today in worship.

But when we study the book, we learn about (or ought to ) the three sections of the book, the various authors, when (and where) they lived and wrote and what their principal messages were.

 

[GenemZ]

The simplest and most likely reason for the same prophecy being found in two different books is not two identical revelations, nor one prophet quoting another, but writers attributing the same saying to two different prophets.

How old are you? You act as if you were there!

God had only what he wanted to be written, written down in Scripture.

Revelation 10:4 niv
"And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven say, "Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it down."

You make it sound like the Bible was written by bungling news reporters. If God did not want it there, it was not to be written. That is, if it were to become a part of the Word of God.

Exodus 34:27 niv
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."

Jeremiah 30:2 niv
"This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you."

Something tells me that you see the Bible as being the work of men, not God. The way you speak of its compilation and development, sure does sound that way. If God did not want something in the Bible, it did not get in there. Anything that is added by man is not Scripture.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[depthdeception]

You make it sound like the Bible was written by bungling news reporters. If God did not want it there, it was not to be written. That is, if it were to become a part of the Word of God.

This is only a necessary conclusion if inspiration = dictation. If God rather inspires the texts that men have written (which is what the bible actually is), then there is no such difficulty.

 

[Bushido216]

You make it sound like the Bible was written by bungling news reporters. If God did not want it there, it was not to be written. That is, if it were to become a part of the Word of God.

Presume you to know the mind of God? How do we, as fallen mortal, know what He wanted? Perhaps He wanted the confusion? Perhaps He did not dictate on such a specific level. Perhaps He knew you'd come here to annoy all of us. You are taking what you believe to be Divine Inspiration and applying it OVER God. That is a form of heresy if I believe. Please stop, or I'll report you to the moderation.

 

[Critias]

Presume you to know the mind of God? How do we, as fallen mortal, know what He wanted? Perhaps He wanted the confusion? Perhaps He did not dictate on such a specific level. Perhaps He knew you'd come here to annoy all of us. You are taking what you believe to be Divine Inspiration and applying it OVER God. That is a form of heresy if I believe. Please stop, or I'll report you to the moderation.

Wasn't it written that God is not the author of confusion?

And, where did geneZ say he knew the mind of God? That is quite an accusation to make without any support.

The way you judge others is the way God will judge you.

 

[GenemZ]

Presume you to know the mind of God? How do we, as fallen mortal, know what He wanted?

1 Corinthians 2:16 niv
"For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ."

Just because we have something, does not mean we will use it. God has nothing to learn. So, we can not instruct him. But, God has given us his written Word so that we can know his mind as we should. We have been given his thinking in terms that we are needing in this life. Its called, "sound doctrine." Not all desire this kind of teaching. Some do. Some don't.

Perhaps He wanted the confusion? Perhaps He did not dictate on such a specific level. Perhaps He knew you'd come here to annoy all of us. You are taking what you believe to be Divine Inspiration and applying it OVER God. That is a form of heresy if I believe. Please stop, or I'll report you to the moderation.

What? I would just love to see that report!

COMPLAINT: "GeneZ actually thinks the Word of God, is the Word of God! Do something with this heretic, please!"

Perhaps He wanted the confusion?

I see... Perhaps? God wanted the confusion?

1 Corinthians 14:33 niv
"For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints."

You are taking what you believe to be Divine Inspiration and applying it OVER God.

I will leave you with this...

2 Timothy 3:16 niv
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Do me a favor? If you make that complaint? Please tell them to inform me of what they thought about it? I really find it amsuing that you think it heresey to think the Word of God is blasphemy to believe it. To believe it can be truly understood. That's what I get from your words.


In Christ, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

How old are you? You act as if you were there!

God had only what he wanted to be written, written down in Scripture.

You make it sound like the Bible was written by bungling news reporters. If God did not want it there, it was not to be written. That is, if it were to become a part of the Word of God.

Something tells me that you see the Bible as being the work of men, not God. The way you speak of its compilation and development, sure does sound that way. If God did not want something in the Bible, it did not get in there. Anything that is added by man is not Scripture.

In Christ, GeneZ

The bible is indeed the work of human authors. We believe those authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But they were still humans, not angels. To get a scripture given by an angel, you need to go to the Qur'an, not the bible. At least that is Muslim belief.

I was not suggesting that anything was added to scripture that God did not want there. I was only commenting on the most likely mechanism by which some prophecies were attributed to two different prophets and so appear in scripture more than once.

And if God did want some prophecies to be in scripture twice, who are you to say he would not use this way of getting it into scripture twice? Are you so sure you know exactly how inspiration works?