What human species was Adam and Eve?

[dad]

I suggest that the disintegration of the physical human body has come from two causes:
1. the mixing of the Adamic man of Gen 2 with the evolved man of Gen 1. Think in terms of the evidence of Neanderthal in our genes.

When I look at Neanderthal ancestors, I think of post flood man that adapted to the new world over some centuries.

2. the alteration of human genes by the fallen angels prior to the flood.

That assumes that the 8 people on the ark who were were chosen by God had demon ancestors. The bible does not mention that.

These mixing and alterations account for much of the genetic disease and weaknesses of the human body.
IMHO

Speculation.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Dad: When I look at Neanderthal ancestors, I think of post flood man that adapted to the new world over some centuries.
Yes...

Dad: That assumes that the 8 people on the ark who were were chosen by God had demon ancestors. The bible does not mention that.
Well, only 3.. that being the wives of the sons.
I believe Noah and his wife were pure, and therefore the sons pure.

Dad: Speculation.
Yeah, to some extant.

 

[dad]

Dad: When I look at Neanderthal ancestors, I think of post flood man that adapted to the new world over some centuries.
Yes...

Dad: That assumes that the 8 people on the ark who were were chosen by God had demon ancestors. The bible does not mention that.
Well, only 3.. that being the wives of the sons.
I believe Noah and his wife were pure, and therefore the sons pure.

Dad: Speculation.
Yeah, to some extant.

Basically I guess that would mean Jesus had demon ancestors in your scenario?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Basically I guess that would mean Jesus had demon ancestors in your scenario?

No more than to say he had a fallen human nature.

 

[dad]

No more than to say he had a fallen human nature.

He did come from physical parents. You seem to claim they would have to have been demon related.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

He did come from physical parents. You seem to claim they would have to have been demon related.

The scripture says that God prepared a body for him. Not of men or demons.
Thanks.

 

[dad]

The scripture says that God prepared a body for him. Not of men or demons.
Thanks.

He was born of a woman. If you claim she may have fallen angel DNA, that would be a significant claim.

 

[dcalling]

so you think because it says "that yields seed" in Gen 1 and "of the field" in Gen 2 that they are talking about different plants? Do you believe the herb of the field yields seed? if so Gen 1:11 is inclusive the herb of the field (Gen 2:5). This is a very weak argument and it just appears desperate on your part, even after you determine that they use the same word which is your original argument you still cling to it. They are different accounts so they tell the details differently, one is not intended to fix or cover the other and they are independent.

The only one that is the same is e-sab, the word used for plant is totally different.

Not only that, in gen 2:5 both words (herb and plant) are post fixed with hasadeh, i.e. of the field, which is not present in Gen 1:11-12.

And, not only that, the word that is the same, e-sab, herb, in Gen 1:11-12 are prefixed with de-se, i.e. grass.

It is clear that in Gen 1:11-12, God sprout out things that is not of the field (or do not need humans), and in Gen 2:5, God is talking about plants God designed to have humans to attend to.

So this should be very clear, that God used different words, different preffix, different post fix to tell us the differences, as long as you pay attention to them.

 

[DamianWarS]

The only one that is the same is e-sab, the word used for plant is totally different.

Not only that, in gen 2:5 both words (herb and plant) are post fixed with hasadeh, i.e. of the field, which is not present in Gen 1:11-12.

And, not only that, the word that is the same, e-sab, herb, in Gen 1:11-12 are prefixed with de-se, i.e. grass.

It is clear that in Gen 1:11-12, God sprout out things that is not of the field (or do not need humans), and in Gen 2:5, God is talking about plants God designed to have humans to attend to.

So this should be very clear, that God used different words, different preffix, different post fix to tell us the differences, as long as you pay attention to them.

this requires a far more extensive study to come to these conclusions then you are giving, or at least you have shown. Biblical exegesis just doesn't mean the things we want them to mean out of convenience and treating it this way turns it into a pretext to support your ideas not the meanings of the text.

The simple interpretation would point to Gen 1 being inclusive of the plants in Gen 2, if you disagree then you are going to have to show the study as to why. I admit there may be a conflict as the simple explanation may be argued that Gen 2 is a continuation of Gen 1 rather than another account but you don't seem to be giving this the sort of disciple required to come to these ideas and it would be better to just say "I don't know" rather than pretend you know.

You seem to be approaching the text with a preconceived idea of what it means than searching for that meaning and this is just irresponsible and one I can respect.

 

[dcalling]

this requires a far more extensive study to come to these conclusions then you are giving, or at least you have shown. Biblical exegesis just doesn't mean the things we want them to mean out of convenience and treating it this way turns it into a pretext to support your ideas not the meanings of the text.

The simple interpretation would point to Gen 1 being inclusive of the plants in Gen 2, if you disagree then you are going to have to show the study as to why. I admit there may be a conflict as the simple explanation may be argued that Gen 2 is a continuation of Gen 1 rather than another account but you don't seem to be giving this the sort of disciple required to come to these ideas and it would be better to just say "I don't know" rather than pretend you know.

You seem to be approaching the text with a preconceived idea of what it means than searching for that meaning and this is just irresponsible and one I can respect.

I already showed you clear evidence, i.e. Gen 1:11-12's herb/tree are prefixed with 'de-se' (could mean grass) and Gen 2:5's herb/tree got post fixed with 'of the field', AND tree is a different word then Gen 1:11-12.

Not only that, from the text, it is clear Gen 2:5 is putting its emphasis on humans, i.e. certain things God want humans to do, God want Adam to tend the Garden, so it could either mean the trees/herbs are of different kind, or it could even mean it is the trees/plants of the garden.

But all that is not important, what's important is when there are clear evidences otherwise, you keep insist that the verses conflict with each other, and refuse to take the clues that God might mean something different. So you are the one who pretend you know when you don't know, and you are the one who insist God conflict with Himself in the Bible and refuse to admit that you are much more limited than God.

 

[DamianWarS]

I already showed you clear evidence, i.e. Gen 1:11-12's herb/tree are prefixed with 'de-se' (could mean grass) and Gen 2:5's herb/tree got post fixed with 'of the field', AND tree is a different word then Gen 1:11-12.

I get your reason I'm saying you haven't shown scholarly support. Can you show me someone who knows hebrew to say the same thing?

Not only that, from the text, it is clear Gen 2:5 is putting its emphasis on humans, i.e. certain things God want humans to do, God want Adam to tend the Garden, so it could either mean the trees/herbs are of different kind, or it could even mean it is the trees/plants of the garden.

Or it could mean they are different accounts. You seem to sweep under a rug the fact that gen 1 opens and closes quite nicely and gen 2 opens a new account about creation. They don't go side by side, they go parallel.

But all that is not important, what's important is when there are clear evidences otherwise, you keep insist that the verses conflict with each other, and refuse to take the clues that God might mean something different. So you are the one who pretend you know when you don't know, and you are the one who insist God conflict with Himself in the Bible and refuse to admit that you are much more limited than God.

There are conflicts and it would be foolish to deny this. The order of creation is a conflict in gen 1 compared with 2. the fact you attempt to reconcile them doesn't remove the conflict.

I googled "gen has 2 creations accounts" and the first result shows me an article written by David Bokovoy who has a PhD in Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East and an MA in Jewish Studies. My position agrees with what this article and is quoted saying "[the accounts] are distinct in several ways and even contradict each other on key issues" then later affirms this difference of order saying
"InGen 1, God creates plants, then animals, and then simultaneously creates man and woman. In Gen 2, God creates a human, plants, then animals, and later he divides the human into female and male." He also concludes these were existing accounts and different that were included in the Gen narrative.

This is an example of scholarly opinion that agrees with what I'm saying. As I said it's an example and I use it to show how quick I can find support as it was the first result of the first search I did and it supports what I say and I'm sure I can find countless others as well. Can you find anyone that can support what you're saying?

 

[dad]

.... gen 1 opens and closes quite nicely and gen 2 opens a new account about creation. They don't go side by side, they go parallel.

No new account at all. It is the same creation and it was finished by verse one in chapter two. The chapter is not an order of creation. It compliments what was already DONE and finished and over and adds some flesh to the story and new details.

The order of creation is a conflict in gen 1 compared with 2.

The conflict does not exist except in the minds of people who chose to think some new created order is given.

I googled "gen has 2 creations accounts" and the first result shows me an article written by David Bokovoy who has a PhD in Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East and an MA in Jewish Studies. My position agrees with what this article and is quoted saying "[the accounts] are distinct in several ways and even contradict each other on key issues" then later affirms this difference of order saying
"InGen 1, God creates plants, then animals, and then simultaneously creates man and woman. In Gen 2, God creates a human, plants, then animals, and later he divides the human into female and male." He also concludes these were existing accounts and different that were included in the Gen narrative.

Absurd example of a would be smart guy pretending he knows what he is talking about when he is clueless in the extreme. It is not THEN created this or that in chapter two. It was over and finished already. We have the order it was created in already. To impose another creation order is to demonstrate that one does not either believe or comprehend that the created order was already given, and chapter two is NOT any order. NO contradictions. Just filling in gaps and details about what was DONE in chapter one.

As I said it's an example and I use it to show how quick I can find support as it was the first result

Most people on earth are not saved. Most do not have Him in their lives and His spirit, which is a requirement of understanding the bible. To find a plethora of goofy google results echoing an opinion that paints God as an incompetent confused bungler who messed up creation as well as the bible is simply blasphemy.

 

[DamianWarS]

No new account at all. It is the same creation and it was finished by verse one in chapter two. The chapter is not an order of creation. It compliments what was already DONE and finished and over and adds some flesh to the story and new details.
The conflict does not exist except in the minds of people who chose to think some new created order is given.



Absurd example of a would be smart guy pretending he knows what he is talking about when he is clueless in the extreme. It is not THEN created this or that in chapter two. It was over and finished already. We have the order it was created in already. To impose another creation order is to demonstrate that one does not either believe or comprehend that the created order was already given, and chapter two is NOT any order. NO contradictions. Just filling in gaps and details about what was DONE in chapter one.
Most people on earth are not saved. Most do not have Him in their lives and His spirit, which is a requirement of understanding the bible. To find a plethora of goofy google results echoing an opinion that paints God as an incompetent confused bungler who messed up creation as well as the bible is simply blasphemy.

As I said it was just an example to show how quick I can get scholarly support, he has a PhD in biblical hebrewexpertthe ancient near East and a MA in Jewish studies so has the right credentials.

Anyone can say someone is clueless, why I could say you posts are clueless, but what meaning is it when there is no support? I invite you to participate in this discussion on this level, but so far all you have given me is your own opinion.

 

[dad]

As I said it was just an example to show how quick I can get scholarly support, he has a PhD in biblical hebrew expert the ancient near East and a MA in Jewish studies so has the right credentials.

That did not help him a bit. He needs a little faith rather than a lot of doubting mental machinations. He that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He does what He said. You cannot assume God contradicted Himself, and then expect to get anywhere but hopelessly confused.

Anyone can say someone is clueless

No, they can't. The clue is that God really did create as He said He did, and as all the prophets and apostles echoed, and that He is not dead or a liar or dumb or wrong or confused. The guy has a PHD in doubt, and an MA in false teaching.

 

[DamianWarS]

That did not help him a bit. He needs a little faith rather than a lot of doubting mental machinations. He that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He does what He said. You cannot assume God contradicted Himself, and then expect to get anywhere but hopelessly confused.
No, they can't. The clue is that God really did create as He said He did, and as all the prophets and apostles echoed, and that He is not dead or a liar or dumb or wrong or confused. The guy has a PHD in doubt, and an MA in false teaching.

As I've said it is an example but since the article is not about faith I can't comment on the man's faith. I've never once called God "dead or a liar or dumb or wrong or confused" and I still don't. But I still don't see the accounts as literal and I still see Gen 1 and Gen 2 as different accounts.

I still invite you to find scholarly support to give some backing to your claims. Gen 1 and 2 conflict and all you can do is call people names and only show your own opinion. Why is your opinion better than mine? I too claim it is the truth from God so why is your version better?

 

[dad]

As I've said it is an example but since the article is not about faith I can't comment on the man's faith. I've never once called God "dead or a liar or dumb or wrong or confused" and I still don't. But I still don't see the accounts as literal and I still see Gen 1 and Gen 2 as different accounts.

The source you cite in effect calls God confused and wrong.

I still invite you to find scholarly support to give some backing to your claims. Gen 1 and 2 conflict and all you can do is call people names and only show your own opinion. Why is your opinion better than mine? I too claim it is the truth from God so why is your version better?

The creation spoken about all through the bible is the one in Genesis. Nowhere does it suggest God contradicted Himself. That is ridiculous.

 

[dcalling]

I get your reason I'm saying you haven't shown scholarly support. Can you show me someone who knows hebrew to say the same thing?



Or it could mean they are different accounts. You seem to sweep under a rug the fact that gen 1 opens and closes quite nicely and gen 2 opens a new account about creation. They don't go side by side, they go parallel.



There are conflicts and it would be foolish to deny this. The order of creation is a conflict in gen 1 compared with 2. the fact you attempt to reconcile them doesn't remove the conflict.

I googled "gen has 2 creations accounts" and the first result shows me an article written by David Bokovoy who has a PhD in Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East and an MA in Jewish Studies. My position agrees with what this article and is quoted saying "[the accounts] are distinct in several ways and even contradict each other on key issues" then later affirms this difference of order saying
"InGen 1, God creates plants, then animals, and then simultaneously creates man and woman. In Gen 2, God creates a human, plants, then animals, and later he divides the human into female and male." He also concludes these were existing accounts and different that were included in the Gen narrative.

This is an example of scholarly opinion that agrees with what I'm saying. As I said it's an example and I use it to show how quick I can find support as it was the first result of the first search I did and it supports what I say and I'm sure I can find countless others as well. Can you find anyone that can support what you're saying?

So if some online professor with a doctor degree tell you Bible is not true you will also believe it?

There are many many Bible scholars that don't believe the Bible is true, or are atheists, I am going to conclude that you value their opion more than the world of God due to their title?

To show you how funny your question is, let me ask you this, if I do find people with degrees who can speak hebrew that agree that the Genesis account is consistent, are you going to drop your opion?


And last, do you value the opion of some other people who can speak hebrew or are you capable of find the answer yourself? i.e. Gen 1:11-12's herb/tree are prefixed with 'de-se' (could mean grass) and Gen 2:5's herb/tree got post fixed with 'of the field', AND tree is a different word then Gen 1:11-12. Can you deny that?

But all that is not important, what's important is when there are clear evidences otherwise, you keep insist that the verses conflict with each other, and refuse to take the clues that God might mean something different. So you are the one who pretend you know when you don't know, and you are the one who insist God conflict with Himself in the Bible and refuse to admit that you are much more limited than God.

 

[DamianWarS]

The source you cite in effect calls God confused and wrong.
The creation spoken about all through the bible is the one in Genesis. Nowhere does it suggest God contradicted Himself. That is ridiculous.

So if some online professor with a doctor degree tell you Bible is not true you will also believe it?

There are many many Bible scholars that don't believe the Bible is true, or are atheists, I am going to conclude that you value their opion more than the world of God due to their title?

To show you how funny your question is, let me ask you this, if I do find people with degrees who can speak hebrew that agree that the Genesis account is consistent, are you going to drop your opion?


And last, do you value the opion of some other people who can speak hebrew or are you capable of find the answer yourself? i.e. Gen 1:11-12's herb/tree are prefixed with 'de-se' (could mean grass) and Gen 2:5's herb/tree got post fixed with 'of the field', AND tree is a different word then Gen 1:11-12. Can you deny that?

But all that is not important, what's important is when there are clear evidences otherwise, you keep insist that the verses conflict with each other, and refuse to take the clues that God might mean something different. So you are the one who pretend you know when you don't know, and you are the one who insist God conflict with Himself in the Bible and refuse to admit that you are much more limited than God.

I can't keep going back and forth with the same arguments. I reject what you say and find it uneducated and extremely bias. Now find someone who actually knows Hebrew and has written something to support your view and then we can continue this discussion. You don't like my source? well, again it is just an example of how easy it is to find support which I was clear from the beginning however if you really dislike it then I invite you to find an expert that can disprove it. We have reached a point in the conversation were our words alone cannot prove anything so find someone who actually is an expert and start quoting them.

 

[dad]

I can't keep going back and forth with the same arguments. I reject what you say and find it uneducated and extremely bias. Now find someone who actually knows Hebrew and has written something to support your view and then we can continue this discussion. You don't like my source? well, again it is just an example of how easy it is to find support which I was clear from the beginning however if you really dislike it then I invite you to find an expert that can disprove it. We have reached a point in the conversation were our words alone cannot prove anything so find someone who actually is an expert and start quoting them.

God is the expert and those who believe him. Cursed is man that trusts in man.

 

[DamianWarS]

God is the expert and those who believe him. Cursed is man that trusts in man.

you're a man... should I trust you? we both claim truth from God yet differ, you seem to feel content to simply ignore what I say claiming your position is the only way based on your words alone. Should I take your advice and not trust you since you are not God? who decides? simply saying I'm wrong does not make me wrong (since you are only a man) and your failure to produce anything to support what you're saying forces me to not take you seriously. Do you want to be taken seriously? then start taking the conversation seriously.