Of course, your thoughts on this (some of which I can agree with) has implications that would be rejected by the church. The mosaic laws, as I see it, would be specifically only for those adamic lines and not those of us not born in that bloodline. So, if you take that even further, the messiah came to save Israel, and "the others" . . . .well who knows. Doubtful that we would be "in need of salvation" since the law was for the Jews. Then christianity came along and tried to work everyone under the law, but that may not be the case. Again, just thinking outloud.
-
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
The Flood and Noah
- Thread starter ChevyRodeo
- Start date
researcher
Member
- Mar 15, 2009
- 1,079
- 1
For my part, I believe the trees in the garden were people. The first instance of trees being used symbolically.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Luk 3:9 And even now the axe also lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Luk 3:9 And even now the axe also lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Orion said:
Rejected by what church,,,,,o those religious hypocritical money staching place pushing churches,,,the same ones Christ dealt with and rebuked,,,,let them reject it,,,they cant prove the doctrine wrong...
Yes gentiles were in much need of salvation,,,,idols,,,and sacrificing your children probably wont make the Lord to happy.....
Those who believe and repent are covered by Christ,,,,those who do not are covered by the law....But being covered by Christ means trying to obey the law,,,,and repenting when you fall short........
Again the mainstream church is going to go going whoring after the antichrist...........
westtexas
Member
- Jul 6, 2009
- 1,263
- 20
(THE) said:
I think you pretty much got it,,,,,sorry you dont agree,,,but the bible is clear is clear,,,and if you just use a little hebrew it confirms,,,lets review.....
Gen 1:26-27
26 And God said, Let us make man (?????? ) "'adam is man, any man, men, mankind" 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.
as you can see,, the word "'adam" means mankind,,,,,are you going to tell me that it doesnt??????
(?????? ) "'adam is man, any man, men, mankind
So in Genesis 1 God "CREATED" mankind.....
Lets look at Genesis 2
7 And the LORD God formed man 'eth haa-'adam with the Article & Particle is this particular man Adam)...... of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. KJV
The herbew uses articel and particle this lets the reader no when you see the word (man) whether or not we are reffering to a certain man or mankind or men in general......
In Genesis 1:26 we see the word "man" but it doesnt have article or particle,,,this lets us no that we are talking about mankind as a whole.....
In Genesis 2 we see the word man with the article and particle (eth-ha-adam) this means were talking about a certain man a particula man that Christ would come through.....
Just because you see the word "man" in Genesis,,,you cant assume thats Adam the husband of Eve.....THe Hebrew makes it very clear......
So if you believe I am wrong maybe you can tell me where my error is,,,,,,because from my studys I come up with ,,,
Gen 1:26 ('adam) mankind,,, men in general,,,,no article no particle......
Genesis 2:7 (ha-adam) with the article no particle,,,means the man being spoken of (the man)
Geneis 2:7 (eth-ha-adam) with the Article & Particle is this particular man Adam,,,,a certain man,,the man that would lead to the Christ.....
insert:::::: There are four principal Hebrew words rendered "man", and these must be carefully discriminated. Every occurrence is noted in the margin of The Companion Bible. [/quote:k7ezbz9c]
(THE), I am not a Hebrew scholar and do not claim to be. However, you have used the Companion Bible as a reference so I will also. It seems that your reference agrees with my point of view more than it does with yours. Take a look at the note on 1:27 (created,ie. when He did create. The description of the act was postponed till 2:7--- The Companions Bible) It seems to me that your source agrees that 2:7 is the description of the creating of mankind in 1:27
Westtexas
(THE), I am not a Hebrew scholar and do not claim to be. However, you have used the Companion Bible as a reference so I will also. It seems that your reference agrees with my point of view more than it does with yours. Take a look at the note on 1:27 (created,ie. when He did create. The description of the act was postponed till 2:7--- The Companions Bible) It seems to me that your source agrees that 2:7 is the description of the creating of mankind in 1:27
Westtexas
[/quote]
Bullinger was wrong in this case,,,I can show you why,,,and im sure you will understand event though were not Hebrew scholars....
I used Bullingers work only to show you the four principles word for "man" "adam being only one,,,we are only discussing the word 'adam but since its 1 0f the 4 I just included the others.....
Bullinger does the a good job in showing these four principles words,,,but he was wrong in his rendering of Genesis 1 and 2 "man" again its a simple mistake,,,,,and the answer is so obvious I think it eluded a great scholor like Bullinger.....
But agian I can prove he was wrong by just copying and pasting Bullinger own work.....
westtexas
Member
- Jul 6, 2009
- 1,263
- 20
Once again I agree with your Mr. Bullinger and I think he disagrees with you.(THE) said:
Gen 1:26 'adam
Gen. 1:27 ba-ra e-lo-him be-tze-lem be-tzal-mov ha-'a-dam et- e-lo-him vai-yiv-ra (Hebrew Interlinear Bible)
Gen. 2:7 a-far ha-'a-dam et e-lo-him ha-shem vai-yi-tzer (Hebrew Interlinear Bible)
In Gen. 1:26 God said let us make mankind ('adam) in our own image and in 1:27(So God created man in His own image) He did it with this man being spoken of (ha-'a-dam) The same man that He is speaking of in 2:7 (ha-'a-dam)
Westtexas
westtexas said:
So even though Bullinger said the first time we see (eth-ha-adam) is in Genesis 2......Then he turns right around and says the man in Genesis 1 is (eth-ha-adam)
You dont see a problem with this???????????
Many scholars and students have noticed this,,,,and you just wanna look the other way??????
Bullinger was a great scholar and was the only man allowed to translate the Massorah into english,,,so from that you see why he held in such high esteem......But hes a MAN,,,,men make mistakes,,,,and he made this one along with others......
westtexas
Member
- Jul 6, 2009
- 1,263
- 20
I personally don't think he has made a mistake. You are the one who has used Mr. Bullinger as an authority on ancient Hebrew translation. Now that he does not agree with YOUR point of view, he has made a mistake. Mr. Bullinger makes it very clear that the man formed in 2:7 is the same man who was created in 1:26 and 27.(THE) said:
Westtexas
westtexas said:
Sounds like your being stubborn,,,,Bullinger said the first occurance of eth is in Genesis 2:7,,,how many time have I shown you this????????????????????????????????????????
Then he said (eth) is in Genesis 1 ,,,you cant have it both ways..................
Sorry but I check out everything a man says I dont care if there a scholar or not,,,wrong is wrong......
ummmmmm Bullinger is a man that made a mistake......Yes he is a authority in Hebrew that doesnt measn he makes mistakes.......Bullinger studied under Ginsberg,,and from my knowledge Ginsberg understood the differance......But what ever the error is simple and many people have shown the err and heres one.......If you still think that Bullinger is correct after this,,,,,this subject is probably over your head.....
Insert ::::::::::::::::::::::
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:
"[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 2:7 (first occurrence), 8,15." [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-'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 |
westtexas said:
I didnt use his translations ,,,,I used his appendix for the 4 principles words for man......
He didnt make a gross mistranslation,,,he missed a small denoting....
Top authority,,,,Bullinger was the only american that was allowed the translate the massorah....The top authority is the Holy Spirit......Just because he's a good scholar doesnt make him right.....
I left all the evidence needed to one looking for truth to see Bullingers err,,,,many have brung this to light no big deal make the correction and move on.....
If you chose to believe Bullinger just because hes Bullinger then,,,,,,I guess you will be playing peter pan soon because Bullinger also believed in the rapture........
the (eth) (ha) seen in Genesis 1 is denoting 'adam,,,in other words men mankind...not the certain man "formed" of the ground by God......but whatever
Me thinks you are out of your league.....................................................