02 Mar 2011, 3:47 am
JakobVirgil wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
1.I'm neither an atheist nor someone who defends biblical inerrancy. Just goes to show how you clearly have no idea where I'm coming from.
just going by your self description
actually my new theory of your mind is that you are an evangelical xtian troll [i]
2.Nice dodge. Why was Adam mentioned in a way as if he was the first to be created by God? Dodging is not an argument.
[i]either is begging the question. well for one he was not definitely mentioned in gen one. that author did not think it was important.
3.
Again, why not mention the name of the first man created by God if Adam is not the one? Wouldn't his story be interesting, too?
because the author of gen one did not care.4.
Elohim is also plural. So?
I have no problem with a panthiestic reading.
I think that it may be the right one.
just going by your self description
actually my new theory of your mind is that you are an evangelical xtian troll [i]
2.Nice dodge. Why was Adam mentioned in a way as if he was the first to be created by God? Dodging is not an argument.
[i]either is begging the question. well for one he was not definitely mentioned in gen one. that author did not think it was important.
3.
Again, why not mention the name of the first man created by God if Adam is not the one? Wouldn't his story be interesting, too?
because the author of gen one did not care.4.
Elohim is also plural. So?
I have no problem with a panthiestic reading.
I think that it may be the right one.
So Adam in Genesis 2 was just a man among many created by God even though he's the only one mentioned in Genesis 2 (aside from Eve) and God's direct creation of him is described.
Sorry, that's just speculative interpretation to me that Genesis doesn't say Adam was the first man.
And you're a liberal Christian troll.
(1)
no, you willful miss-stater
I would be saying if you could get your head out of the sermon your preparing for Sunday service.
I am saying that gen 1 is generic gen 2 is specific.
I have said it about 5 times but I guess you were too busy getting saved and being all things to all men to read thoroughly.
-Jake
(1) Your problem is you think all possible interpretations are equally valid.
In Genesis 1, no first man is defined or named. Fine.
In Genesis 2, Adam is defined by the context as the first man according to Genesis 2 and many other passages in the Scriptures.
So back to my original argument:
Aside from vague passages like Genesis 1, Adam is the first man according to the Bible.
(1) is this willful misreading?
I think there are 3 not infinite valid readings
so your question becomes not counting any verses preceding gen 2 it is Adam the first man?
Q: Was Adam really the first man, according to the Bible?
A: it ain't necessarily so. but traditionally yes
In one of the other threads, you say that you believe that all belief system readings are possibly valid.
Anyway, you are free to believe that there 3 valid interpretations in this case (or whatever it is you actually believe). But it doesn't work with how my mind accepts things.
02 Mar 2011, 8:36 am
MCalavera wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
1.I'm neither an atheist nor someone who defends biblical inerrancy. Just goes to show how you clearly have no idea where I'm coming from.
just going by your self description
actually my new theory of your mind is that you are an evangelical xtian troll [i]
2.Nice dodge. Why was Adam mentioned in a way as if he was the first to be created by God? Dodging is not an argument.
[i]either is begging the question. well for one he was not definitely mentioned in gen one. that author did not think it was important.
3.
Again, why not mention the name of the first man created by God if Adam is not the one? Wouldn't his story be interesting, too?
because the author of gen one did not care.4.
Elohim is also plural. So?
I have no problem with a panthiestic reading.
I think that it may be the right one.
just going by your self description
actually my new theory of your mind is that you are an evangelical xtian troll [i]
2.Nice dodge. Why was Adam mentioned in a way as if he was the first to be created by God? Dodging is not an argument.
[i]either is begging the question. well for one he was not definitely mentioned in gen one. that author did not think it was important.
3.
Again, why not mention the name of the first man created by God if Adam is not the one? Wouldn't his story be interesting, too?
because the author of gen one did not care.4.
Elohim is also plural. So?
I have no problem with a panthiestic reading.
I think that it may be the right one.
So Adam in Genesis 2 was just a man among many created by God even though he's the only one mentioned in Genesis 2 (aside from Eve) and God's direct creation of him is described.
Sorry, that's just speculative interpretation to me that Genesis doesn't say Adam was the first man.
And you're a liberal Christian troll.
(1)
no, you willful miss-stater
I would be saying if you could get your head out of the sermon your preparing for Sunday service.
I am saying that gen 1 is generic gen 2 is specific.
I have said it about 5 times but I guess you were too busy getting saved and being all things to all men to read thoroughly.
-Jake
(1) Your problem is you think all possible interpretations are equally valid.
In Genesis 1, no first man is defined or named. Fine.
In Genesis 2, Adam is defined by the context as the first man according to Genesis 2 and many other passages in the Scriptures.
So back to my original argument:
Aside from vague passages like Genesis 1, Adam is the first man according to the Bible.
(1) is this willful misreading?
I think there are 3 not infinite valid readings
so your question becomes not counting any verses preceding gen 2 it is Adam the first man?
Q: Was Adam really the first man, according to the Bible?
A: it ain't necessarily so. but traditionally yes
In one of the other threads, you say that you believe that all belief system readings are possibly valid.
Anyway, you are free to believe that there 3 valid interpretations in this case (or whatever it is you actually believe). But it doesn't work with how my mind accepts things.
I think I said all belief systems are equally stupid (Arbitrary if I was feeling generous).
I can't be bound to how your mind works.
I have to work with the one I got.
-Jake
02 Mar 2011, 9:49 am
