Why believe the bible?

[Angrboda]

How on earth does that even remotely address the question?

it invalidates the question as being dishonest in nature. in that you had to pull from several sources in a way not consistent with their use in order to formulate the argument. this is blatant trolling.

Nobody was beating you over the head, I was simply asking why you considered the instance of adam in Genesis 2 to be a name.  You quoted Strong's H120 which noted that it could mean either man or Adam.  That didn't in any sense answer the question I was asking.  You seem rather worked up about this.  Are you feeling okay?  Had a little bit too much caffeine this morning, perhaps?

just don't like being trolled on questions that matter. like this you are focusing on the strongs when the 12 or so translations should have ended the topic. it should the be put to you on why your usage of the word adam supperceeds 12 established translations of the term humanity or man kind. proper etiquette demands you explain yourself, not me. I'm the establishment I am holding the incumbent position here I represent 1000s of years worth of literary translation. You are the one encroaching with hacked source material to make a false statement.

No I said God made man in the garden first between day 3 and 4 as genesis 2 is a recounting of day 3 and 4 and everything in chapter two (starting verse 5) is all about the garden narrative and adam H121 the first man and eve.

Day 6 man was man H120 made outside of the garden. This was not Adam H121 but man kind. H120 I don't presume to assign him monkey status unless you are a evolutionist. Then I simply point to the freedom for you to do so as needed.(meaning how long you think it took between the end of creation and the fall of man)

That still doesn't justify viewing the men created in Genesis 1:26 as being different from the man created in Genesis 2.

 
You did not ask for a justification. the justification is the time line established in the beginning of Chapter two 4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

6 So water[a] came up from the earth and spread over the ground. So again look back when did he make the earth and sky but before there were plants? between day 3 and 4. So between days 3 and 4 all of chapter 2 happened. the next thing God did was make Adam, and breathed a living soul into him.

So when does the man get made outside the garden according to verse 1? day 6.

That is the justification what was you stumbling block/your paradox has become the corner stone that hold this narritive together. Ironically this first stumbling block also clears the way for all other stumbling blocks to be used to also fortify the story!

If they were the same, then Adam was created after the animals and you still have the harmonization problem that JairCrawford referenced.

I did not see her problem

 

God, according to traditional theology, is an immaterial spirit.  So what are you trying to say God meant when he said He made mankind in his image?

God to us in imaterial because He calls beyond our ability to tacitly verify on demand when we are lost. God is available to His Children. God the Spirit is immaterial God the Son and God the Father are not. So far as I understand things.

 

Are you saying that by "imago dei" they meant something other than possessing a spirit or a soul?  What are you suggesting was the image of God?

image physical likeness. not a photo copy or a clone but a physical being that represents God. I stood before Jesus on my judgement dream He was smaller than I was but built as a man none the less.

So you think the Jews got their own book wrong, but you got it right.

yes, every Christian knows this to be true. because the jews who got it right are no longer called Jews are they?

 

Fascinating, ludicrous, but fascinating.  I'll simply add anti-semite to the list of your virtues.

add it to the list of messanic jews as well. as they are no longer bound by the laws of judaism.

Secondly... So? This was established genesis 1 and 2 Genesis two says man was created in his image and Adam was compatible with man as they were the same save Adam and his people had souls.

No, it does not say that in Genesis 2.  

it does as God in chapter two God took a lump of clay ad FASHIONED MAN and breathed a living soul into him then refer to him later on as ADAM.

The reference to man being made in God's image is in Genesis 1, thus the relevance of the passages, as they link the man created in Genesis 1 to Adam and other ensouled men.  Thus the relevance.

the use of your hebrew word is the same moreor less context/commonplace noun versus proper masculine noun. the words man and the word Adam is working like a double edged sword against you. in chapter one God made adam h120 in his image. Chapter two God made adam h120 and breathed a living soul into him and placed Adam h121 in the garden. God never placed adams h120 in the garden.

Adam h121 was in the garden a long long time perhaps long enough for all of evolution to have taken place. we know through the genealogies that Adam h121 was in the garden till about 6000 years ago. Now man outside if your an evolutionist was man made in God's image (whatever attributes those may have been) but either way we do know Adam's h121 kids were compatible with the sons of adam h120 as they married and were given unto marriage with the children of 'adam h120

h121 Adam the first man's name
h120 Man/humanity in general

Do you get the point or did I loose you?

God created adam h120 day 6 outside the garden

God also created adam/man and placed this singular/first man in the garden and called him by name "Adam."

So when I say so what to your reference in gen 5 I am saying God calls adam who is physically compatible to day 6 man also created in his image, but with one extra bit... that bit being the soul.

So, let me see if I follow you. You're saying, based upon your interpretation of a supposed difference in timeline in Genesis 2, that God created man in his image on day three, and he then again created man in his image on day 6, and that likeness was a physical one, not a spiritual one? That day 6 man, day 3 man, and God were all genetically compatible?

I must say that's a novel heresy, if nothing else.

Curious though, why did God give dominion over the beasts and birds and whatnot to day 6 man, but not to day 3 man? Do we not then have dominion over the earth?