Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About ewq1938


  • Gender

Relationship Status

  • Relationship Status


  • Den


  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I already have proven the word can also mean "man". G76 Ἀδάμ Adam ad-am' Of Hebrew origin [H121]; Adam, the first man; typically (of Jesus) man (as his representative): - Adam. "man" How about I show you what others say? Barnes: The last Adam - The second Adam, or the “second man,” Gill: by "the last Adam" is meant Jesus Christ, called Adam, because he is really and truly a man, a partaker of the same flesh and blood as the rest of mankind Hardly an "absurd" concept.
  2. G76 Ἀδάμ Adam ad-am' Of Hebrew origin [H121]; Adam, the first man; typically (of Jesus) man (as his representative): - Adam. Yes it does. The Greek word used there can either mean Adam as a personal name or "man" in reference to Jesus. So it does say Jesus is the last man or last Adam but we know that isn't literal and if that isn't literal then Adam being the "first man Adam" doesn't literally mean the first human ever...best understood as the first of his own race of humans. We are just going in circles on most of the rest but I wanted to address this.
  3. 1Co_15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. It does because why would younger children of Adam lived out so far away? Why would they live in the same place where a murderer would eventually be banished? How old could they even be since Cain was the eldest and why would he fear his own brothers, people that couldn't possibly even know he had killed Abel? None of your way of interpreting this makes any sense. The only thing that makes sense is that Cain was sent to a land where none of his brothers lived, and there were people who were not Adamites that he feared by the mark protected him and there he married a non-Adamite woman. Adam is not mentioned until Gen 2. Adam did not exist on the 6th day because he was created after the 7th day. Well I believe Gen 1 and 2 are chronological as is all of Genesis. Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. Gen 2:7 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. So we clearly see that Adam is created after the 7th day. This explains why the order of creation in Gen 1 does not match the order found in Gen 2...two different creations. One a more global events, and one much smaller involving one specific garden intended for only Adam and Eve and their children but the sin caused them to raise family outside of the garden where some distance away were other people whom Cain eventually met.
  4. Same verse where it says Adam is the first man. There is a difference between never mentioning females in genealogies but mentioning them by name or just generally outside of a genealogy. I have shown that all through this thread. There is evidence that Adam and his family knew of others that lived in other lands and there was fear about them as evidenced by Cain. I literally just spoke of that. Also, Adam was created after the 7th day so people on the 6th day proves Adam wasn't the first human being. I said that just the other day. All the evidence is there. The problem lies with man's traditions that have been in place for so long.
  5. And also says Jesus is the last man. If we take those things literally then you and I are not human beings. Clearly they do not mean literally the first and last men. I don't expect daughters to be listed in genealogies nor did I say as such. My point is there is no mention of any daughters existing when Cain and Abel were alive let alone a banished murderous son allowed to take a younger sister with him to be his wife in a foreign land. If one thinks of Adam as being the first of his own people then there is plenty of room for other humans to live upon the earth. The same people Cain was afraid of running across when he was traveling away from his homeland into new lands with people he feared.
  6. How is it obvious if not ever written that such a thing occurred not to mention no mention of even having sisters when he killed Abel. I think it's more obvious Cain married a woman who lived in Nod. Likely the same people he did say he was afraid of so God marked him so no one would murder him.
  7. He fulfills the prophecy written in Rev 20.
  8. Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. The word eretz means "land" throughout the Bible, except in Genesis 6:17 in where they use "earth". Which is a bit odd because Gen 4:14 Cain was driven from the "earth" to the "earth", when actually he was driven from the "land" where he was to the "land" of Nod.
  9. Besides people created on the 6th day and Adam created after the 7th? Cain marrying someone after being banished?
  10. If you go back and re-read you will see that I have not done that. Is being the first woman in the garden the same thing as the first woman anywhere in the world? The world was populated but the garden was not until God starting to populate it. It was not like the rest of the world.
  11. Nice insults. Very Christian and mature of you.
  12. Then why do you insist to argue that "had formed" is the better translation? Only the perfect would mean that but the imperfect does not nor can not.
  13. I assume proving to you the verb is in the imperfect would not mean anything to you, correct?
  14. Your argument is with Hebrew grammar and not myself at this point.
  • Create New...