adam & eve

by gotcha 126 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • D wiltshire
    D wiltshire

    aC,
    Genesis 1:27-30:

    1:27 And God created Man in his image, in the image of God
    created he him; male and female created he them.
    1:28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and
    multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion
    over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and
    over every animal that moveth on the earth.
    1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb producing
    seed that is on the whole earth, and every tree in which is the
    fruit of a tree producing seed: it shall be food for you;
    1:30 and to every animal of the earth, and to every fowl of the
    heavens, and to everything that creepeth on the earth, in which
    is a living soul, every green herb for food. And it was so.

    I think this must been given to mankind by God "before" A&E came to be, perhaps thousands of years before. It's seems to me that mankind may not have been global yet either.

    Genesis says animals have "souls" and, so, will they benifit from Jesus death too?
    Also that God gave both man and animals only plants to eat no meat?
    Was this because animals have souls?

    If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
  • aChristian
    aChristian

    DW,

    You wrote: I think this must been given to mankind by God "before" A&E came to be, perhaps thousands of years before. It's seems to me that mankind may not have been global yet either.

    I agree.

    You wrote: Genesis says animals have "souls" and, so, will they benifit from Jesus death too?

    Certainly not. The Bible indicates that only the spirits of men "return to God who gave them." And that, unlike the spirits of men which "rise upward" to God following our deaths, the spirits of animals "go down into the ground." (Eccl. 3:21; 12:7)

    You wrote: Also that God gave both man and animals only plants to eat no meat?

    I disagree. Genesis 1:29,30 are commonly translated as follows:

    29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food,'' and it was so.

    However, I have discussed these verses with two Hebrew scholars who have both told me that their proper translation may actually be as follows:

    29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and every beast of the earth and every bird of the sky and every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given you, just as every green plant, for food," and it was so.

    With this in mind, I believe Genesis 1:30 does not refer to the diet of animals at all. Rather, I believe it teaches that God made mankind as omnivores. Otherwise we have God, in this verse, telling mankind what animals are allowed to eat. His doing so would make no sense. For people are not able to regulate the diet of all of earth's animals.

    Some have objected to such a translation, saying that it creates a contradiction with Genesis 9:3 where God told Noah that he could now eat "everything that lives and moves." "Why, " they ask, "would God say such a thing, if no change had occurred, if man had always been allowed to do so?" The answer to this question is found in verse 4. There we find that Noah was informed of the change. He was told by God that from then on he would be allowed as always to eat all animal life, just as the green plants, except after the flood he was not allowed to eat meat with its blood still in it.

  • D wiltshire
    D wiltshire

    aC,

    Sounds very plausible to me.

    Another question:
    I seems like all mankind not just A&E's offspring were not very global, and God had to force them to expand by confusing their language.

    What has your research shown you as to this, was mankind somewhat concentrated in a relativily small area on earth did it start to become global only after the confusion of the language?

    If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
  • aChristian
    aChristian

    DW,

    The point I meant to make was that the word "to," which I have here put in brackets three times, is not part of the Hebrew text. It has been inserted by translators who feel it completes the thought that was being expressed. However, I feel it changes the thought that was being expressed. Remove the word "to," and add one "as" which I have also put in brackets, while reading verse 30 and you will see what I mean.

    29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and [to] every beast of the earth and [to] every bird of the sky and [to] every thing that moves on the earth which has life, [as] I have given every green plant for food,'' and it was so.

  • ashitaka
    ashitaka

    It's obviously a parable written by men. Perhaps the writer had heard legends of the first people, who were then called (in the legends) Adam and Eve, but the reality of it is absurd. God (if you believe in him) would not entrap people, just for the hell of it. He wouldn't be like that.

    That is, if you believe in a God of love.

    ashi

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    DW,

    You wrote: It seems like all mankind not just A&E's offspring were not very global, and God had to force them to expand by confusing their language. .... was mankind somewhat concentrated in a relativily small area on earth did it start to become global only after the confusion of the language?

    The Bible's own chronological, historical record indicates that the flood of Noah's day took place in 2350 B.C. Recent scientific tree ring studies point to this same date as being one in which a major climate altering event took place. However, scientists also assure us, for a slew of reasons, that if the Bible's account of Noah's flood is describing an actual historical event, it must be describing a flood that was confined to the land in which Noah lived. They also tell us that in the year 2350 B.C. our earth was very widely populated. For instance, anthropologists are certain that North America has been continually inhabited for 15,000 years and Australia for 30,000 years.

    So then, what are we to make of the Bible's story of the tower of Babel and the confusion of languages which there took place shortly after the flood?

    Genesis 11:1 tells us "The whole earth was of one language, and of one speech."

    I believe that the true confusion of tongues, surpassing the incident at Babel, is the translation of ancient Hebrew into modern English. As I have pointed out in my past comments on Noah's flood, the Hebrew word that is often translated in Genesis as "earth," giving readers the idea that its writer was referring to our entire planet, is much more often translated in the Old Testament as "land." In fact, we find this to be the case in the very next verse (Gen. 11:2) which refers to the "land" of Shinar. I believe that Bible translators who chose to translate the Hebrew word "erets" as "earth" rather than as "land" in the Bible's historical accounts of Noah's flood and the tower of Babel are mainly to blame for many people's misunderstandings of both the Bible and the history of mankind.

    The traditional interpretation of the flood and the dispersion at Babel has been that the total population of the entire world was confined to the land of Shinar in the post-flood era. It is said that these people, who supposedly amounted to all people living on earth, all spoke the same language and were all involved in building a tower at Babel. Then it is said that God confounded them, and off they went in all directions muttering Aztec, Mandarin, Swahili, and the like. They crossed oceans and reached far distant continents and changed their skin colors along the way.

    This interpretation of Genesis has continued in spite of much extrabiblical evidence that has long been available which proves that this interpretation cannot be correct. All the "fundy" apologists have to do is count the mud brick ziggurats in Mesopotamia. Any number that exceeds one kills their interpretation. The remains of over thirty such "towers" have been found all over the region, in twenty-seven different cities, hundreds of miles apart. Had the entire earth been devoid of humanity except for Noah's descendants who all lived in the land of Shinar where the tower of Babel was built, what would explain all the additional towers?

    Those other ziggurats at all those other widely scattered sites could not have all been built at the exact same time as the tower of Babel. Thus they had to have been constructed either before or after the tower of Babel. If they were constructed before Babel, it would mean that Noah's descendants (if everyone then alive were Noah's descendants) had already begun to spread out and settle in widely separated communities, precluding them from all being at one place, which was the case according to Genesis 10. On the other hand, if the many other ziggurats were constructed after Babel, it would mean that after the Lord taught them that He didn't like them building such towers and confused their language so they could not do so, they somehow managed to band together again and build more towers all over the place like nothing had happened. This makes no sense.

    What does make sense is to understand that building ziggurats was very much the thing to do in those days. The tower of Babel was simply one of many Mesopotamian worship centers. Clearly, the building of the tower of Babel and the confusion of the participants' languages which then occurred seemed like a gigantic event to those who were there and passed the story down to their descendants. But the fact of the matter is that the tower of Babel was only one such tower among many which then existed. It was probably not even the biggest. And it was almost certainly neither the first nor the last.

    So then, what did happen at Babel? Apparently some of Noah's descendants saw some of the fantastic places of worship built by their Sumerian neighbors, which were devoted to pagan gods. They then decided to follow suit and build just such a tower in an effort to reach their God. Due to their ignorance, the God of Noah's descendants tolerated the actions of the worshippers of false gods when they erected such structures in their foolish efforts to reach nonexistent pagan deities. However, God expected His chosen people to exercise better judgment. He was not pleased with their pagan copycat building project. So He put an end to it by confusing their speech. This action on God's part successfully brought an end to the spiritually misguided building project which Noah's descendants had begun and resulted in their being dispersed throughout the land.

    As a final note, judging from the writings of Noah's descendants, some of which predate the time of Babel, the confusion of speech which took place at Babel does not appear to have been a permanent one.

  • D wiltshire
    D wiltshire

    That sounds like a better explaination than currently popular.

    If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
  • clash_city_rockers
    clash_city_rockers

    The greater problem with aC is that if he eliminates the biblical doctrine of the first Adam then he has erased the need for the second Adam and thus distroyed the biblical basis of an IMPUTATION of Christ's rightiousness to us. A&E took God's word very litteraly until the serpint challenged God's word as litteral "hath God said?" Gen 3:1,2. Yet A&E stop taking God's word litteraly at that point and adopted a non-litteral herminudic Just like you aC, and sinned in the garden. I believe aC you are Going after a bigger fish when you attact plainary verbal inspiration and the creation account. I think you are trying to deny the doctrine of creation to get at original sin and the imputation of Adam's guilt to us, thus attacking our need for Christ's rightiousness by faith alone imputed to us. That aC is what you are really going after.

    kick back have a beer and think about it
    late,
    jr

  • clash_city_rockers
    clash_city_rockers

    Angie wrote:

    Christianity (Because of his research is a christian now).

    NO, because of the grace of God revieled in the gospel your husban is a Christian. Romans 1:16,17 the gospel alone, not evidences, is the power of salvation.

    jr

    Arminianism sucks

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    Clash,

    You wrote: The greater problem with aC is that if he eliminates the biblical doctrine of the first Adam then he has erased the need for the second Adam and thus distroyed the biblical basis of an IMPUTATION of Christ's rightiousness to us.

    No, I don't. I believe the story of Adam and Eve happened quite literally, exactly as Genesis tells us that it did. I believe that "the first Adam" was a real historical person. I believe that because of his disobedience, unrighteoussness was imputed to all mankind by God, even though we are not all physically related to Adam. Just as righteousness is able to be imputed to all who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord, even though they are not physically related to Jesus Christ.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit