Why believe the bible?

[Angrboda]

Well, you're ignoring that Genesis 1 explicitly states that "adam" created at that time was created in God's image.

1 don't antagonize me. no one is this stupid.
2 No it absolutely does not unless you are speaking in a hebrew english hybrid. meaning you take the english translation for 15/16th of the passage and only use the hebrew word because it looks and sounds like the english word Adam and seek to push a bad translation. That is why you intentionally mislead me by posting the hebrew over english translation. it was the only document you could find to allow you to freely select a word. You and everyone else has to know how dishonest this practice is! Do you realy see me as being that dumb?

How on earth does that even remotely address the question?

 But I'm curious to know upon what basis do you rest this theory about the one referring to mankind in Genesis 1, and that it was a proper name in the second?

 Glob... Seriously? you are beating me over the head with a lexicon, and you don't understand that the "Adam of man kind/Humanity and the Adam a man's name is two different words?!?!? or rather has two different word meanings in the strongs? look up strong word number H120 and Strong's word number H121 do you see that 120 is a common masculine noun and 121 is a proper masculine noun EG a person's name?
That is why you can not find a translation to support your reading.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lex...H121&t=KJV
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...H120&t=KJV

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?

Are you trying to suggest that God has the form of an ape man?  That would be contrary to all Jewish theology up to the present day.  Does God have DNA?

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

That said if the jews got everything their bible said... they would not still be jews. matter of fact the jew that remains today are the descendants of the pharisees that Jesus quarreled with as the Sadducees were all hunted down and executed in 70 ad, or they converted to christianity and were no longer counted as jews.

So you think the Jews got their own book wrong, but you got it right. Fascinating, ludicrous, but fascinating. I'll simply add anti-semite to the list of your virtues.

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. 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.