Genesis 1/Souls

[handy]

I would truly like to see you respond to my exegesis of Genesis 6 & 7...we truly can't have 6 without 7...6 giving us God's stated purpose and 7 showing us what God actually did...

I've read through your response, and you don't seem to address the points I've brought forward at all....


As to the reasons why the flood could not have been global...unless you can show from Scriptures that it wasn't global, then I'm going to continue believing it was, for the simple reason that Genesis 6-8 confirm a global catastrophe.

I hesitate to respond to your bullet points because this tends to be a problem whenever I try to engage in a Bible study regarding a pre-Genesis world...I search the scriptures, look up original words, look to context, study cross-references...then the other person throws out hundreds and hundreds of words that really don't respond to my posts, but rather tends to engage in a number of circular arguments.

Right now, what I'm trying to determine is: Are texts (Jeremiah 4, 1 Peter 3) which are being used to show that the earth was once fully inhabited, then utterly destroyed and remade in Genesis 1 being applied correctly...or is it better exegesis to understand that they are speaking of the Flood?

So far...you're not making the best case that they do not apply to the antediluvian world...

Show me, from the Scriptures, why when God said "For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made"...and then we read that "All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died", that this isn't exactly what happened.

The criteria here isn't "Everyone in the land of Nod" or "All between the Tigris and the Euphrates" but all that was on dry land....Dry land encompasses a lot of our earth.

 

[Prince]

I would truly like to see you respond to my exegesis of Genesis 6 & 7...we truly can't have 6 without 7...6 giving us God's stated purpose and 7 showing us what God actually did...

I've read through your response, and you don't seem to address the points I've brought forward at all....


As to the reasons why the flood could not have been global...unless you can show from Scriptures that it wasn't global, then I'm going to continue believing it was, for the simple reason that Genesis 6-8 confirm a global catastrophe.

I hesitate to respond to your bullet points because this tends to be a problem whenever I try to engage in a Bible study regarding a pre-Genesis world...I search the scriptures, look up original words, look to context, study cross-references...then the other person throws out hundreds and hundreds of words that really don't respond to my posts, but rather tends to engage in a number of circular arguments.

Right now, what I'm trying to determine is: Are texts (Jeremiah 4, 1 Peter 3) which are being used to show that the earth was once fully inhabited, then utterly destroyed and remade in Genesis 1 being applied correctly...or is it better exegesis to understand that they are speaking of the Flood?

So far...you're not making the best case that they do not apply to the antediluvian world...

Show me, from the Scriptures, why when God said "For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made"...and then we read that "Allevery flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died", that this isn't exactly what happened.

As to the reasons why the flood could not have been global

1) In Genesis 1 God created (not formed) mankind (gentiles) the gentiles do not come from Adam they were created on day 1....They made it through the flood. Gen 10

2) The kenites (Cains family) not a part of Adams family they have there own bloodline as seen in Genesis 4 they made it throught the flood, as seen in 1 Chronilcles.

3) The flood addresses the family of haa-adam (Adam) a point you keep overlooking.

4) The size of the ark could not fit every single animal in it. But since you are overlooking the importance of 'adam and haa-adam youre missing it.

Lets take it line by Handy that way everything is covered

 

[Prince]

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them

Men

ha-adam - haa-'adam with the Article is the man.

Can we agree this is talking about the family of Adam and not all men?

If this were talking about all of mankind the word would be

'adam

The only time this is not utilized is in Genesis 5 where the article has been dropped

and Adam receives his name when the text drops the definite article from the word for "the man," changing "ha-adam" to "Adam

 

[handy]

Ok, let's break down Genesis 6:7

Gonna use the KJV here, just because it will be easier to cut/paste from Strongs:

And the LORD 3068 said 559 , I will destroy 4229 man120 whom I have created 1254 from the face 6440 of the earth 127; both man120, and 5704 beast 929, and the creeping thing 7431, and the fowls 5775 of the air 8064; for it repenteth 5162 me that I have made 6213 them.

*From Blue Letter Bible

So, we have God stating I will destroy man (adam 120) from the face of the earth ('adamah 127)



Blue Letter Bible, which is a reliable a Net source as they come, defines Strongs 120 'adam as:
1) man, mankind
a) man, human being
b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
c) Adam, first man
d) city in Jordan valley


Your source Biblos.com, another reliable source translates 120 'adam as:
any man (2), anyone (4), anyone's (1), being* (1), common sort* (1), human (19), infantry (1), low degree* (1), low* (1), man (363), man's (20), man* (1), mankind (9), men (104), men of low degree* (1), men's (3), men* (4), mortal (1), one (3), people (1), person (5), person* (1), persons (3), population (1), someone (1).

The word 'adam, Strongs 120 is used in

Genesis 1:20 "Let us make 'adam (120) in Our image"
Genesis 1:27 "So God created 'adam (120) in His own image"
Genesis 2:5 "there was not a 'adam (120) to till the ground."
Genesis 2:7 "so the Lord formed 'adam (120) of the dust of the ground."


Now, it seems as if there is some kind of significance to the fact that Genesis 1 says that God created 'adam whereas Genesis 2 says "formed"...

Not sure why a whole theology of God creating separate races of men in Genesis 1 and only Adam in Genesis 2 cropped up just because there are two differing words that have essentially the same meaning. I've heard this theory before as well...that Genesis 1 describes a totally different creation process than Genesis 2 and that the "man" of Genesis 1 was not Adam.

If we are going to go there (and it really looks as if we are, so forgive me if this isn't what you were getting at) then not only did God create one kind of "man" in Genesis 1 and formed Adam in Genesis 2...He created all the fish in the sea, the birds in the air and beasts of the ground and creepy-crawly things in Genesis 1 and formed....what completely different beasts and birds?

So, Genesis 1 states created and Genesis 2 states formed. The two words in question bara' and yatsar mean essentially the same thing:

bara':
1) to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations

yatsar:
1) to form, fashion, frame
a) (Qal) to form, fashion
1) of human activity
2) of divine activity
a) of creation
1) of original creation
2) of individuals at conception
3) of Israel as a people


That these words are freely interchangeable is clear given the way that they are used in texts such as Isaiah 43:1, 7 and Isaiah 45:18

(Just refreshed my screen and can see a new post from you.)

Perhaps the problem is, none of my source material give the "haa-adam" that you find so significant, and I used the Biblos numbers that you quoted previously...

Please give me the exact verses that you see "ha-adam" in...and I'll be happy to study them...but, in all honesty, I won't commit to agreeing "haa-adam" is speaking only of Adam and not all mankind, until after I can see "haa-adam" in context.

 

[n2thelight]

Great study Prince,in agreement with you all the way........

 

[stovebolts]

•• That the Kenites (sons of Cain from Gen 4:17-24) made it through the flood (to be found in 1st Chron 2:55, etc.), but were not with Noah's family on the Ark (good swimmers perhaps?).

Sorry, but the Kenites do not derive geneologically from Genesis 4:17-24, but rather, they derive spiritually.

Genealogally speaking, you can track from Reuel, who tracks back to Keturah, Abraham's wife.

Let me know if you need some help with the genealogy. It can be a bit confusing with Jethro, Reuel and Hobab ;) Judges 4:11, Exodus 2 and 3.

What makes the Kenites interesting in scriptures, is that honestly, the word Kenite describes a type of peoples without a genealogical track for the word simply means Smith, which geological, and historical evidence of the region supports.

To support the assertion that the Kenites did not derive from geneology, please see Judges 4:11. If that's not enough, please look at this verse.

1 Chronicles 2:55 And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

BTW, Rechab comes from Benjamin (From Jacob, Benjamin was the youngest) 2 Samuel 4:2

You can track the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites, and you can track Reuel as being a Medianite... Yet they are all "Kenites" That is, without specific, concrete and abolute genealogy, but rather in titles as "Smiths" that concentrated in the land of Canaan.

BTW, I noticed you never addressed my previous post.

 

[Prince]

Ok, let's break down Genesis 6:7

Gonna use the KJV here, just because it will be easier to cut/paste from Strongs:

And the LORD 3068 said 559 , I will destroy 4229 man120 whom I have created 1254 from the face 6440 of the earth 127; both man120, and 5704 beast 929, and the creeping thing 7431, and the fowls 5775 of the air 8064; for it repenteth 5162 me that I have made 6213 them.

*From Blue Letter Bible

So, we have God stating I will destroy man (adam 120) from the face of the earth ('adamah 127)



Blue Letter Bible, which is a reliable a Net source as they come, defines Strongs 120 'adam as:
1) man, mankind
a) man, human being
b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
c) Adam, first man
d) city in Jordan valley


Your source Biblos.com, another reliable source translates 120 'adam as:
any man (2), anyone (4), anyone's (1), being* (1), common sort* (1), human (19), infantry (1), low degree* (1), low* (1), man (363), man's (20), man* (1), mankind (9), men (104), men of low degree* (1), men's (3), men* (4), mortal (1), one (3), people (1), person (5), person* (1), persons (3), population (1), someone (1).

The word 'adam, Strongs 120 is used in

Genesis 1:20 "Let us make 'adam (120) in Our image"
Genesis 1:27 "So God created 'adam (120) in His own image"
Genesis 2:5 "there was not a 'adam (120) to till the ground."
Genesis 2:7 "so the Lord formed 'adam (120) of the dust of the ground."


Now, it seems as if there is some kind of significance to the fact that Genesis 1 says that God created 'adam whereas Genesis 2 says "formed"...

Not sure why a whole theology of God creating separate races of men in Genesis 1 and only Adam in Genesis 2 cropped up just because there are two differing words that have essentially the same meaning. I've heard this theory before as well...that Genesis 1 describes a totally different creation process than Genesis 2 and that the "man" of Genesis 1 was not Adam.

If we are going to go there (and it really looks as if we are, so forgive me if this isn't what you were getting at) then not only did God create one kind of "man" in Genesis 1 and formed Adam in Genesis 2...He created all the fish in the sea, the birds in the air and beasts of the ground and creepy-crawly things in Genesis 1 and formed....what completely different beasts and birds?

So, Genesis 1 states created and Genesis 2 states formed. The two words in question bara' and yatsar mean essentially the same thing:

bara':
1) to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations

yatsar:
1) to form, fashion, frame
a) (Qal) to form, fashion
1) of human activity
2) of divine activity
a) of creation
1) of original creation
2) of individuals at conception
3) of Israel as a people


That these words are freely interchangeable is clear given the way that they are used in texts such as Isaiah 43:1, 7 and Isaiah 45:18

(Just refreshed my screen and can see a new post from you.)

Perhaps the problem is, none of my source material give the "haa-adam" that you find so significant, and I used the Biblos numbers that you quoted previously...

Please give me the exact verses that you see "ha-adam" in...and I'll be happy to study them...but, in all honesty, I won't commit to agreeing "haa-adam" is speaking only of Adam and not all mankind, until after I can see "haa-adam" in context.

Are you just looking at words that have been transliterated or do you actually understand what the Hebrew is saying....

Ok lets go all the way back...

 

[handy]

Ok lets go all the way back...

NO!!!! Don't, please Prince, please don't....


Just give me the texts in which you are seeing "haa-adam" so that I can study them, because I realize that is where our differences lie.

 

[Prince]

After gathering my data I realized (remebered) there are many works concerning this subject, where all of your questions have been answered and your beliefs - well Handy, they have been proven wrong , sorry


But I do believe this to very true

you often have well reasoned posts

Use the reasoning skill well Handy.



Genesis 1:27

Gen 1:27​

27 So God created*1 man*2 in his own*3image, in the image of God he created him; male and female created he them*4.​

*NOTE: man*2 here is

. ​

The Article and the Particle are here with this particular occurrence of the word "man" (aadam) in the Hebrew manuscripts, we will cover that further below.​

Embedded notes in Scripture (by #):​

*1created = Hebrew word #1254 bara' (baw-raw'); a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; to shape, to fashion, to create (always with God as subject), used of heaven and earth, used of individual man, used of birth, used of something new. ​

*2man = Hebrew word #120: 'adam (aw-dawm'); a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.): mankind (the much more frequently intended sense in the Old Testament).
[See note at left]​

*3 own = This word is not in the original manuscripts and is in this case wrongly supplied. You will notice in the King James Version (KJV) and in the New King James Version (NKJV) that this word is in italics, that means that it is a word the translators added to make the verse more 'readable' in the English. Also note that 'elohiym is a plural noun and does not fit grammatically with "in his own image." Also see note below.​

*4male and female created he them = Notice here in Gen 1:27 that both male and female were created at the same time. Contrast this with Gen 2:7 where Adam is formed (not created) first, and then in Gen 2:22 Eve is taken from him. This is significant!​

Note: Whenever you see a word italicized in your KJV Bible it means that the word is not in the original manuscripts, but was added by the translators because sometimes one Hebrew or Greek word requires two or three English words to properly relay the value of the word. Their intent was harmless, but sometimes they were wrong. The translators were not aware that there were two creation events and that this was speaking of the first event involving many different peoples, thus the phrase: In God's OWN image is not correct; the correct phrase is: In God and the Angels image ('elohiym). ​

A Necessary Note on Genesis 1:27​

There is dilemma of sorts here. Not really a dilemma in the Scriptures, but a dilemma in the manner that we have taught them. And I myself am guilty of this. What I mean is that many (including us in the past) have placed so much emphasis on the 'eth haa-'aadam of Gen 2:7 that the matter becomes completely confused when we are met with an 'eth haa-'aadam here in Gen 1:27.​

This (the 'eth haa-'aadam in Gen 1:27) can only seen by reading from the manuscripts themselves (which we include a picture of the text below for you to share) because the Hebrew Article and Particles are not always evident in the English Bible. In fact, the King James Bible leaves us high and dry here, for while in the Hebrew the word "man" in Gen 1:27 has BOTH the Article and the particle, the Bible prints it simply as "man" without even capitalizing it; i.e.,​

"So God created man..." (Gen 1:27). It doesn't even say "the man" whereby we may have been alerted to the Article. So this is an error with many to blame.​

And many of the greats have made this error; Pastor Murray doesn't teach it, Bullinger omits it in his appendix #14 of the Companion Bible: The Synonymous Words used for "Man" where he says:

[FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][SIZE=+1]"[Adam] [w]ith the particle

('eth) in addition to the article it is very emphatic, and means self, very, this same, this very,. See Genesis 2:[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]7[/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][SIZE=+1] (first occurrence), [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]8,15[/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][SIZE=+1]."[/SIZE][/FONT] [You notice that Bullinger failed to mention Gen 1:27]​

​

But then in his footnotes in that same Companion Bible, for Gen 1:27 he says of this word "man":

"Here the Heb[rew] 'adam has the art[icle] and the demonstrative Heb[rew] 'eth [the particle], to indicate that the man Adam created in [Gen]2:7 was the man purposed here."​

​

Bullinger was wrong in his assumption that they were speaking of the same man, for he did not know of the two creation events, but he did notice the article and the particle here but omitted it in his above appendix. So we are not alone in this confusion, but nevertheless, when one discovers that he has left something amiss, and that correction is needed, it is best to simply make the correction and move on. No man is perfect.

The Hebrew Particle is unrepresented in the English so that it does not appear in many transliterated works. The Particle is an actual Strong's word and it's definition is as follows:

(The Particle): Hebrew word #:853 'eth (ayth); apparent contracted from [Hebrew word #]226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self, (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely): KJV - [as such unrepresented in English].​

​

The different forms of the Hebrew word 'adaam

(Note: The Hebrew characters are reversed​

from our English, and read right to left)

'adam is man, any man, men, mankind.​

haa-'adamwith the Article is the man.​

'eth haa-'adam with the Article & Particle is this particular man Adam.​

​

​

 

[Prince]

The different forms of the Hebrew word 'adaam
(Note: The Hebrew characters are reversed
from our English, and read right to left)

'adam is man, any man, men, mankind.

haa-'adam with the Article is the man.

'eth haa-'adam with the Article & Particle is this particular man Adam.​

I know that it seems like the definitions are 'splitting hairs,' but it is much easier to understand these words and their different meanings and weights & values when viewing them in a Scripture:
Gen 1:26-27
26 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.
27 So God created man

in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. KJV
Gen 2:7
7 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. KJV​

Because of the way that we and others have taught it, it has come to mean in the students mind that 'eth haa Aadam is like Adam's proper full name or something, like my name is Nick Goggin. But this is not the case. 'eth haa Aadam does not mean Mr. Adam Eden. While the man Adam from the Garden of Eden may be properly called 'eth haa Aadam, it does not mean that it is his proper name.
Literally, 'eth haa Aadam, means This same man (that particular being spoken of). So that:​

in Gen 2:7 we know that "This same man" is talking about the one that the Lord God formed in the Garden of Eden;
however, and but, the 'eth haa Aadam "This same man" in Gen 1:27 is speaking of the male of the species who was created in the image of God (which is male - all angels and God are male - there is no female form in a spiritual body). This can be seen by carefully reading the Scripture:
Gen 1:26-27
26 And God ['Elohiym] said, Let us make man ['adaam] 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.
27 So God ['Elohiym] created man ['eth haa-'adaam] in his own image, in the image of God ['Elohiym] created he him; male and female created he them. KJV​

In other words "in the image of God created he him" (the male), but "male and female created he them" (i.e., not in the image of 'Elohiym, but that both male and female were created at the same time).​

In other words, indeed man (male) was created in the image of 'Elohiym (God), but the female, while being fully human and a created human being, was not in the image of the 'Elohiym.
In other words, God created the male whom He created, in his image; but the female that He created, He did not create in his image; i.e., women do not look like the angels, nor like God, nor like Jesus, for those were all male forms, and the women are female forms. Woman was created for this age so that the Sons of God (the angels) could be born into the flesh of our world (age). Males do not wombs. In Heaven all will be in male forms once again.​

I wonder if I am getting my point across? If I am then you will be thinking to yourself how perfect the Word of God is, for it differentiates things that we don't even know are there (i.e., that females, while indeed being created by God, and blessed (vs. 28), are simply not in His image).
And that is no big mystery, for was not Jesus a male, circumcised on the eighth day, and yet He told His Disciples that when they saw Him they had seen God; i.e., God is male when in the flesh. Don't feel bad women, for even Eve was not in God's image but was rather taken from Adam. It boggles the mind to imagine how many other hidden truths are right there in the open within the Scriptures!​

John 14:9
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? KJV
Luke 2:22-27
22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
23(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;
...27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, [circumcision] KJV​

This will be much easier to understand for someone who is just learning of this, for those who have had the 'eth haa Aadam pounded into their heads as just about being as though the title was tantamount to being 'Mr. Adam Eden' must first unlearn the misconception before being able to relearn the clarity of the matter. We apologize for any contribution to the confusion that we may have caused in the past by over emphasizing the value of 'eth haa-Adam in the Scripture of Gen 2:7 without explaining the occurrence of the term in Gen 1:27. But we are happy to rectify it with the grace of God. Also, there are over three-hundred pages on this site and it could perchance be that this is not clearly brought out in some other place. This document takes precedence over any other discussion on the matter here on our site.

The 'eth haa Aadam of Genesis 1:27 & 2:7​

Gen 1:27 - "So God created man...." (KJV)

Gen 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man...." (KJV)Source: INTERLINEAR TRANSLITERATED BIBLE Copyright ©1994 by Biblesoft. All rights reserved. OLD TESTAMENT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Copyright ©1967/77, 1983 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart. Used by permission.​

In both of the above we see Adam with BOTH the Article and the Particle. The Particle and Article in Gen 1:27 is to denote that the man (the male of the species) is made in the image of 'Elohiym (God) unlike the female;
but in Gen 2:7 the Article and the Particle are to denote that this particular man (on the eighth day) in the Garden was formed by Yehovah 'Elohiym (the Lord God) apart from the males created on the previous creation (on the sixth day).​

| To top |

In His Service:
Nick Goggin Editor; www.biblestudysite.com
WATCHMEN BIBLE STUDY GROUP​

 

[handy]

I need to leave for the day...and am probably going to be very busy for the next couple of days...

I'll study over these....

 

[Prince]

NO!!!! Don't, please Prince, please don't....


Just give me the texts in which you are seeing "haa-adam" so that I can study them, because I realize that is where our differences lie.

Handy if you dont understand Genesis 1 you will not understand Genesis 2 Genesis 6 or 7..

Just give me the texts in which you are seeing "haa-adam" so that I can study them, because I realize that is where our differences lie

Indeed, but your error begins in Genesis 1:26 then you have carried it over to Genesis 2:7 and then carried it over to Genesis 6 and 7....If you dont correct it - well correcting it is up to you.

 

[n2thelight]

Ok, let's break down Genesis 6:7

Gonna use the KJV here, just because it will be easier to cut/paste from Strongs:

And the LORD 3068 said 559 , I will destroy 4229 man120 whom I have created 1254 from the face 6440 of the earth 127; both man120, and 5704 beast 929, and the creeping thing 7431, and the fowls 5775 of the air 8064; for it repenteth 5162 me that I have made 6213 them.

*From Blue Letter Bible

So, we have God stating I will destroy man (adam 120) from the face of the earth ('adamah 127)



Blue Letter Bible, which is a reliable a Net source as they come, defines Strongs 120 'adam as:
1) man, mankind
a) man, human being
b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
c) Adam, first man
d) city in Jordan valley


Your source Biblos.com, another reliable source translates 120 'adam as:
any man (2), anyone (4), anyone's (1), being* (1), common sort* (1), human (19), infantry (1), low degree* (1), low* (1), man (363), man's (20), man* (1), mankind (9), men (104), men of low degree* (1), men's (3), men* (4), mortal (1), one (3), people (1), person (5), person* (1), persons (3), population (1), someone (1).

The word 'adam, Strongs 120 is used in

Genesis 1:20 "Let us make 'adam (120) in Our image"
Genesis 1:27 "So God created 'adam (120) in His own image"
Genesis 2:5 "there was not a 'adam (120) to till the ground."
Genesis 2:7 "so the Lord formed 'adam (120) of the dust of the ground."


Now, it seems as if there is some kind of significance to the fact that Genesis 1 says that God created 'adam whereas Genesis 2 says "formed"...

Not sure why a whole theology of God creating separate races of men in Genesis 1 and only Adam in Genesis 2 cropped up just because there are two differing words that have essentially the same meaning. I've heard this theory before as well...that Genesis 1 describes a totally different creation process than Genesis 2 and that the "man" of Genesis 1 was not Adam.

If we are going to go there (and it really looks as if we are, so forgive me if this isn't what you were getting at) then not only did God create one kind of "man" in Genesis 1 and formed Adam in Genesis 2...He created all the fish in the sea, the birds in the air and beasts of the ground and creepy-crawly things in Genesis 1 and formed....what completely different beasts and birds?

So, Genesis 1 states created and Genesis 2 states formed. The two words in question bara' and yatsar mean essentially the same thing:

bara':
1) to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations

yatsar:
1) to form, fashion, frame
a) (Qal) to form, fashion
1) of human activity
2) of divine activity
a) of creation
1) of original creation
2) of individuals at conception
3) of Israel as a people


That these words are freely interchangeable is clear given the way that they are used in texts such as Isaiah 43:1, 7 and Isaiah 45:18

(Just refreshed my screen and can see a new post from you.)

Perhaps the problem is, none of my source material give the "haa-adam" that you find so significant, and I used the Biblos numbers that you quoted previously...

Please give me the exact verses that you see "ha-adam" in...and I'll be happy to study them...but, in all honesty, I won't commit to agreeing "haa-adam" is speaking only of Adam and not all mankind, until after I can see "haa-adam" in context.

Hello handy,this may help....

http://www.biblestudysite.com/adam.htm

 

[Vic C.]

Dora (Handy) was correct is saying these posts raise red flags. This stuff wreaks of Shepherd's Chapel teaching! :shocked!

 

[stovebolts]

Sorry, but the Kenites do not derive geneologically from Genesis 4:17-24, but rather, they derive spiritually.

Genealogally speaking, you can track from Reuel, who tracks back to Keturah, Abraham's wife.

Let me know if you need some help with the genealogy. It can be a bit confusing with Jethro, Reuel and Hobab ;) Judges 4:11, Exodus 2 and 3.

What makes the Kenites interesting in scriptures, is that honestly, the word Kenite describes a type of peoples without a genealogical track for the word simply means Smith, which geological, and historical evidence of the region supports.

To support the assertion that the Kenites did not derive from geneology, please see Judges 4:11. If that's not enough, please look at this verse.

1 Chronicles 2:55 And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

BTW, Rechab comes from Benjamin (From Jacob, Benjamin was the youngest) 2 Samuel 4:2

You can track the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites, and you can track Reuel as being a Medianite... Yet they are all "Kenites" That is, without specific, concrete and abolute genealogy, but rather in titles as "Smiths" that concentrated in the land of Canaan.

BTW, I noticed you never addressed my previous post.

I'd say it wreaks horribly of Serpent Seed doctrine, which is forbidden by the sites TOS.

Prince, please engage in the posts I have put before you.

thanks.

 

[handy]

Prince...my daughter (wonderful creature that she is) is a lot like a butterfly floating in the wind...flits here, there, everywhere...not that she doesn't have times of startling insight and coherency, but keeping up with her conversationally has taught me to keep hold of the thread of a thought and not get too sidetracked....

Which is why, now that I've gotten to where I was going, I want to reiterate that, while I will indeed study the "haa-adam"....my point, that still has yet to be addressed with nothing more than personal opinion, is that, unless it can be proven that the Flood was nothing more than a local event and not a global catastrophe, the texts provided so far in Jeremiah and Peter can best be applied to the Flood, not to some pre-Genesis civilization.

As I had shown earlier, from the Genesis account, the Flood waters reached a level of at least 3 miles high...how could there be a flood of 3 miles depth, without it being global in nature?

As to where the water came from and to where it went...the bible doesn't tell us so any answer to that must be conjecture, the best we can do is determine whether or not conjectures are based upon common sense or are out in left field.

I would put forth what I believe to be a wholly commonsensical theory...that the waters simply returned to where they were prior to God's forming of the heaven (sky/atmosphere) and dry land...covering the earth. I don't believe those waters were "un-made" as it were, once the sky/atmosphere was in place, water vaporized into the atmosphere and when the dry land appeared, water also solidified into polar ice caps and as snow and ice on high peaks.

Frankly, I believe that the shower I took this morning contained the same water that Adam and Eve bathed in long ago...it's called the water cycle and it's unending. However, with the Flood, the Bible states that the "fountains of the great deep were opened and the floodgates of the sky were opened". All the water that was separated into oceans and vaporized into the atmosphere during Genesis 1, came back to cover the earth. After the Flood, the waters simply went back to the "deep" and to the sky.

Dora (Handy) was correct is saying these posts raise red flags. This stuff wreaks of Shepherd's Chapel teaching!

I think so too...I know a lot of the ideas seem to be coming from the Watchman Bible Study group...I don't know (nor particularly care) if WBSG is associated with Shepherd's Chapel in anyway, but many of the heresies are the same...(yep, including serpent seed...2)

 

[Prince]

Dora (Handy) was correct is saying these posts raise red flags. This stuff wreaks of Shepherd's Chapel teaching! :shocked!

I understand alot of people hate Sheperds Chapel, but I am not affiliated with them, I agree with them on some things and some things I dont, I agree with Catholics on some things I agree with Mormons Baptist Pentecostals exc. on some things and some I dont.

Hitler believed in God, Hitler was a bad man and murderer - if I say I believe in God you will link me to Hitler?...

Sad that we cant discuss things in a christian manner without attacking men, my doctrine has one major belief and that is believe in the Lord Jesus with all your heart and do the best to serve him, what I believe happen in Genesis 3 will never change that.

 

[handy]

Prince, and n2thelight (hello) as well, I'm willing to accept that you're not closely affiliated with Shepherd's Chapel (or even WBSG for that matter) and simply discuss this issue regarding whether or not Genesis 1 speaks to the only beginnings life on this earth has had or there was a previous civilization...as long as we don't stray into serpent seed...I won't go there, I simply won't.

So, I'm willing to delve into the whole "haa-adam" thing, (will say that I googled it yesterday and really couldn't come up with anything except WBSG websites and this thread), and am waiting for a response to the 3 mile deep "local flood"...because I find these topics interesting and somewhat non-essential, meaning we can probably either come to agreement or be willing to disagree, while still respecting one another as brother/sister.

 

[matthew]

sorry to say to you that I believe the earth to only be 6 to 10 thousand years old.
I dont believe for a min. that it is millions of years old , you have bought in to the
lies from the people who push evolution and their so called science.
the bible clealy is pointing to the earth being young but even believers have been tainted with the lie of evolution , evolutionist need an old earth and they go looking
for facts to support their postion and pass over facts that dont support it , and since
the devil is in control of the world and its systems, his lie of evolution is pushed every
where and the truth of Gods creation is mocked every where.

 

[Prince]

This is a reply ot Stovebolts..

Sorry, but the Kenites do not derive geneologically from Genesis 4:17-24, but rather, they derive spiritually

No Sir you are wrong...The bible tells us that the kenites came from Cain mating with his wife.

17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Cain knew is wife that means he mated with her physically not spiritually.. and he had a child name Enoch....The hebrew says she concieved

וַיֵּ֤דַעvai·ye·da3045hadקַ֙יִן֙ka·yin7014Cainאֶת־et-853 אִשְׁתֹּ֔וish·tov,802his wifeוַתַּ֖הַרvat·ta·har2029conceivedוַתֵּ֣לֶדvat·te·led3205and gaveאֶת־et-853 חֲנֹ֑וךְcha·no·vch;2585to Enoch

/ I​

Kenites
The Full Etymology of the Words “Kenite†and “Kenitesâ€
Words Translated “Kenite†and “Kenites†Strong’s 7014—Qayin, kah’-yin; the same as 7013 (with a play upon the affinity to 7069); Kajin, the name of the first child, also of a place in Pal., and of an Oriental tribe:—Cain, Kenite(-s). Strong’s 7017, Qênîy, kay-nee’; or Qînîy (I Chron. 2:55), kee-nee’; patron. from 7014; a Kenite or member of the tribe of Kajin:—Kenite. Words from Which “Kenite†and “Kenites†Are Derived Strong’s 7013—qayin, kah’-yin; from 6969 in the orig. sense of fixity; a lance (as striking fast):—spear. Strong’s 6969—qûwn, koon; a prim. root; to strike a musical note, i.e. chant or wail (at a funeral):—lament, mourning woman. Strong’s 7069—qânâh, kaw-naw’; a prim. root; to erect, i.e. create; by extens. to procure, espec. by purchase (caus. sell); by impl. to own:—attain, buy(-er), teach to keep cattle, get, provoke to jealousy, possess(-or), purchase, recover, redeem, x surely, x verily. Thus, the Kenites are the sons of Cain.

Sorry, but the Kenites do not derive geneologically from Genesis 4:17-24, but rather, they derive spiritually.

You can believe this is you want too, but I have shown biblical/Hebrew evidence that this is far from truth..

Genealogally speaking, you can track from Reuel, who tracks back to Keturah, Abraham's wife.

LOL I dont have enough time respond to this at the moment...

Judg 1:16
16 And the children of the Kenite, Moses' father in law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people. (KJV)

children: Hebrew word #1121 ben (bane); from 1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., [like 1, 251, etc.]):
​

Moses' father in law is referred to as 'Kenite' because he was from the land of the Kenites, he was a stranger in a strange land:

Exod 18:1-3
1 When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father in law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, and that the LORD had brought Israel out of Egypt;
2 Then Jethro, Moses' father in law, took Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her back,
3 And her two sons; of which the name of the one was Gershom; for he said, I have been an alien in a strange land: (KJV)
Exod 3:1
1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. (KJV)
​

To be a priest of Midian, Moses' father in law needed to be a full blood Midianite. The Tribe of Midian descended from Abraham, not Cain (thus not a Kenite):

Gen 25:1-2
1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
(KJV)

But understand - this is not a salvation issue..
​