logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Gustavl  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:28:58 PM(UTC)
Gustavl
Joined: 10/23/2012(UTC)
Posts: 2
Location: london

For instance, on the 6th day when YHWH created man in Genesis 1: 26 - 31, that was a VERY specific happening. First, He created male and female at the same time - the same He did with the animals.
Offline FredSnell  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:55:31 PM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Gustavl wrote:
For instance, on the 6th day when YHWH created man in Genesis 1: 26 - 31, that was a VERY specific happening. First, He created male and female at the same time - the same He did with the animals.



A li'le bi' of breab wiv a bi' of bu'er on i' bruv!..;^))
Offline Richard  
#3 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:31:58 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
What th' -- are you all right, eH?
Offline FredSnell  
#4 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:06:18 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
flintface wrote:
What th' -- are you all right, eH?


Never all right, ff, but I will be okay!.))..That was my attempt at londoner speak.
I just talked with another one in the, Olsteen herd. These folks continually say,
"brother Olsteen says."
Shoot, I'm about to go to his church...lol. He had better hope I don't go, I'll end up
pulling a Yahowsha on his butt and condemn him on national tv.
Offline Richard  
#5 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:50:28 PM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
I believe that they will kill you on the spot and cover it up to look like you were trying to mass murder people and they were only protecting the innocents from you.
Offline FredSnell  
#6 Posted : Friday, October 26, 2012 4:18:23 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
flintface wrote:
I believe that they will kill you on the spot and cover it up to look like you were trying to mass murder people and they were only protecting the innocents from you.


Well, if the catholic from Bealize and bigger that George Foreman didn't clobber me yesterday, I stand a chance..)).."Look at you, black man, following those Italians right to the grave."...Boy that'll get there attention.
Offline cgb2  
#7 Posted : Saturday, October 27, 2012 6:48:44 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
Gustavl wrote:
For instance, on the 6th day when YHWH created man in Genesis 1: 26 - 31, that was a VERY specific happening. First, He created male and female at the same time - the same He did with the animals.


I tend to agree, and skeptical about"nasamahless humans" scriptural support lacking. Seems more an attempt to reconcile "human origins" which I tend to find shakey at best. Leakey et all - Find a knee joint, tooth, skull peice, human remains with rickets, etc with conclusions based on circular reasoning (there is no God - man evolved from apes).

I mean was God finished with creation on the 6th day, and rested from his work on the 7th, or not? Gen 2 gets more specific with man being made from dust of the earth, being placed in the garden, then creation of woman, etc.

Also the problems of these passages can be explained:
(Qa'yin) Cain worried others would kill him, but yet lifespans were hundreds of years and verse about the murder denotes a passage of time before the murder, so could have been many generations by then with 1000s or 10s of thousands of people...
Especially with lifespans of hundreds of years, sexual maturity at +15, and likely fertile longer than current menopause. Yah told them to "be fruitful and multiply" so would have equipped them to do so. The text doesn't neccesarily state that Cain & Able were the 1st & 2nd offspring either, just relevant to the 1st murder account.

Then the gen 6 account I notice that nephilim means tyrants & bullies and could have been just kidnapped women as they pleased. The other place in numbers nephilim is used seems to mean tyrants & bullies who happened to be of great stature too.
I suppose Nimrod (and the aparatus) at babel was a nephilim too...yah wiped out all but Noah and family with the flood, only to have it occur again at babel, gamorrah, mitsrayim, etc, etc, rome, etc, NWO, etc.

Overall there just seems to be far more against a concept of "nesamahless humans" than for (scripture & reason), but willing to reconsider with better evidence.
Offline James  
#8 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2012 3:18:38 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
cgb,

Your interpretation of Gen 6 seems to that the nephilem were large tyrants, which is correct, but that still doesn't address the first part of the chapter, The son's of God marring the daughters of women. The nephaliem weren't mentioned until the the fourth verse. And if the second is speaking of the nephaliem, these tyrants and bullies, taking any woman they choose for themselves why would it call them the son's of God?

Gen 6:1 And it came to be, when men began to increase on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,

This would seem to imply that prior to this they had not increased greatly, been fruitful and multiplied. As for Adam and Chawah having children before Qaiyn and Abel, Chawa's statement after giving birth to Qaiyn would suggest that that was the first. Also why were these other children excluded from the geologies?

Gen 5:3 And Aḏam lived one hundred and thirty years, and brought forth a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Shĕth.
Gen 5:4 And after he brought forth Shĕth, the days of Aḏam were eight hundred years. And he brought forth sons and daughters.

This strongly indicates that other then Qaiyn and Abel Sheth was their first child.

Gen 6:2 that the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men, that they were good. And they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

Again viewing the nephaliem as the son's of God is a bit off to me. The order of the text would suggest that either the nephaliem are the offspring of these marriages, or completely unrelated, i.e. verses 1-3 were presenting one thought and then verse 4 starts another. But I don't think it is possible to see the nephaliem as the son's of God.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline cgb2  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:40:01 AM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
James wrote:
cgb,

Your interpretation of Gen 6 seems to that the nephilem were large tyrants, which is correct, but that still doesn't address the first part of the chapter, The son's of God marring the daughters of women. The nephaliem weren't mentioned until the the fourth verse. And if the second is speaking of the nephaliem, these tyrants and bullies, taking any woman they choose for themselves why would it call them the son's of God?


On further investigation: Seems other "sons of God" in the T/P/P can only be found in Job 1,2,38 and refers to messengers. Hence the tales of fallen angels mating with humans from this, or an alternate I suppose - mating nasamahless humans. On futher examination of alternate meanings of "sons" (ben), seems the text can also simply mean: Mankind greatly increased on earth, the righteous (like solomon) were enticed by the pretty daughters of the unrighteous, and bore tyrants & bullies, forgot about Yahowah, and violence filled the earth. Yah was greived that none considered him or loved him except Noah and family.

Also seems Nephilim contains nothing about "giants" other than the tradition of KJV redering it thus. What adds large stature in Numbers "we were like grasshoppers..." .

James wrote:
Gen 6:1 And it came to be, when men began to increase on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,

This would seem to imply that prior to this they had not increased greatly, been fruitful and multiplied. As for Adam and Chawah having children before Qaiyn and Abel, Chawa's statement after giving birth to Qaiyn would suggest that that was the first. Also why were these other children excluded from the geologies?

A freind recently got into studying his family tree, and one rathole that can cost $$$ searching records is side geneologies not directly in the family tree which quickly grows exponentually. To me strongly implies is the text stuck only to relevant lines Yah used to demonstrate what were later key characters, founders of cities nations, and relevant geneologies. No sense getting bogged down in irrelavent and exponental familys. Also implies massive exponentail growth. Yah is a good communicator.
James wrote:

Gen 5:3 And Aḏam lived one hundred and thirty years, and brought forth a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Shĕth.
Gen 5:4 And after he brought forth Shĕth, the days of Aḏam were eight hundred years. And he brought forth sons and daughters.

This strongly indicates that other then Qaiyn and Abel Sheth was their first child.

Could also be that Qaiyns line was corrupted, and Sheth's line loved Yah like Adam. Also Sheth is later relevant pertaining to Noah. Then quickly sums it up that Adam lived to be 800 and had sons and daughters not mentioned, could even include ones before those children.

James wrote:

Gen 6:2 that the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men, that they were good. And they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

Again viewing the nephaliem as the son's of God is a bit off to me. The order of the text would suggest that either the nephaliem are the offspring of these marriages, or completely unrelated, i.e. verses 1-3 were presenting one thought and then verse 4 starts another. But I don't think it is possible to see the nephaliem as the son's of God.


Me niether, just simply godless tyrants and bullies, opposed to Yah and violent.
Overall seems one has to make far more workarounds and leaps when considering the whole of the Torah to get nasamahless humans, than not.
Offline dajstill  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:27:08 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
cgb2 wrote:


Could also be that Qaiyns line was corrupted, and Sheth's line loved Yah like Adam. Also Sheth is later relevant pertaining to Noah. Then quickly sums it up that Adam lived to be 800 and had sons and daughters not mentioned, could even include ones before those children.





It reads to me like Adam and Chawah had sons and daughters after Sheth, not before. Chawah seems to declare the Sheth is replacing Hebel. There is absolutely no indication of any other family members. There seems to be a clear distinction between the one that follows the instructions of Yahowah (Hebel) and the one that tries to make up his own rules (Qaiyn). If there were other children it would seem as if they would fall into one of those two categories. Why only mention two. In fact, if there were many it would be quite helpful to know what the ratio was of those that followed the instructions of Yahowah (like Hebel) and those that didn't so close to creation. Chawah clearly declares that Seth was replacing her "seed". My Scriptures translation reads:

Genesis 4: 25

"And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Sheth, 'For Elohim has appointed me another seed instead of Hebel, because Qayin had killed him."

Chapter 5 strangely, because it ignores both Qayin and Hebel:

5:3 - 4

"And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and brought forth a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Sheth. And after he brought forth Sheth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years. And he brought forth sons and daughters."

This geneology ignores both Qain and Hebel and declares that Seth was brought forth in the "likeness and image" of Adam. However, it doesn't indicate the other "sons and daughters" were in that image nor do we hear anything about those sons and daughters again. It is really quite strange now that I think about it. Who were those children? What happened to them? How many did he have (thus letting us know the ratio of those that came to know God again so closely following the creation of Adam). For instance, did he have 10 children with only 1 knowing God? Did he have 100 children with only 1 knowing God? Did they all know God, but not count or not matter?
Offline cgb2  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:52:01 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
Chapter 2 is amplification of 1:
1:27,28 Created man and woman, be frutiful and multiply.
2:5 No man to till the ground.
2:7 Created Adam
2:8 placed in the garden
2:9 planted it including tree of life and tree of KoGaE.
2:15 repeats that he placed man in garden.
2:18 Not good that man is alone.
2:19,20 From the ground YHWH formed the beast and let man name them.
2:21 deep sleep took rib.
2:22 Made woman from the rib.

Chapter 4:
4:1,2 birth of Qayin, Hebel (doesn't state how old adam/chawah were)
4:3 And it came to be, in the COURSE OF TIME....
4:8 first murder
4:14 anyone who finds me will kill me.
...minor geneology of Qayin

Chapter 5 (genology Adam-Noah)
5:2 what another creation account ;^)
5:3 Sheth born when adam 130 (130/20=6.5 generations possible)
5:4,5 Adam had sons and daughters lived 930 years.
5:6-9 Enosh born when Sheth 105, Sheth had sons and daughters and died when 912.
5:9 Qeyan born when Enosh 90
5:10 Qeyan had sons and daughter living to age 905
.....etc to Noah.

Maybe Yahwah didn't want to clutter up what he gave to Moshe with irrelevant genologies & details. Maybe Noah pitched the 2,000 volume set of irrelevant geneologies overboard when scared <joking>.

While I think the other things like time relativity etc is spot on, this "nesamahless human" idea seems like giant leaps of faith. Heck, angels mating with women and bearing giants has more support (a big stretch too :^). But hey, each entitled to their opinion and maybe it does help folks impressed with the "human origins scientist" and their leaps of faith with a knee joint, tooth, extinct ape skulls, human with rickets, etc...enough so they will read on. As for me it seems one has to really torture the data to get it to confess to"nesamahless humans".
Offline James  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:09:35 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
The 5th chapter is all about the genealogy of Adam. And in each case we are told how long the person lived until the next person in line was born, and then how long he lived after that and that he brought forth sons and daughters.

Based on our understanding of Scripture and of ancient customs, it is reasonable to say that the name given first is the first born, or at least the first born son to that person. That is how ancient genealogies were kept. Seth was listed first under Adam because Abel had died, and Cain was banished, disowned. So if there were any children born to Adam and Chawah prior to Seth other than Cain and Abel they would in all likelihood have been girls.

Personally I am not a proponent of human origins, I think there are a great many flaws in it to the point were it is useless. But I do think the evidence for man existing outside of Eden is enough for me. That said rather or not these humans had a neshamah is unknown. It is possible that they did, but I think them not fits better. This is certainly one of those topics that is not a big deal and we won't know the real answer until Yah can tell us.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline cgb2  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:38:12 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
^ Then I'm left with asking "why did God give mankind strong sexual urges, but yet all them folks were able to restrain themselves for +100 years (also disregarding be fruitful and multiply) before their first offspring was born?"....or was it " they didn't reach sexual maturity until +100"...or etc.

Or I could say "if Yah wanting to show only direct ancestors of Noah, only they were relevant. At what age they were when their decendants were born sets timespan calculations for Yah's prophesies (4k Yah, 6k Yah)....and even if redundant to other timespans mentioned serves a checksum comfirmation (also guarding against corruption if it conflicts to look closer). Breif mentions of Qayin and increasing wickedness of mankind to explain the flood and why.

I'll choose the later because it makes sense. The many work-arounds, each opening a new can-of-worms to justify "other humans existing prior to Adam/Chawah" wears me out.

Occam's Razor: "It is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected."

BTW: I've checked to verify much of YY, ItG, QP and found most all to be spot on....but this tiny portion of YY Genesis volume gives me a brainache. Yep, not even essential to relationship w/Yah and salvation by any stretch.

Edited by user Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:04:09 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline James  
#14 Posted : Thursday, November 1, 2012 3:51:26 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
cgb2 wrote:
^ Then I'm left with asking "why did God give mankind strong sexual urges, but yet all them folks were able to restrain themselves for +100 years (also disregarding be fruitful and multiply) before their first offspring was born?"....or was it " they didn't reach sexual maturity until +100"...or etc.


Given the lifespan of these people that would actually fit. If you consider the max lifespan of humans today, as set by Yah,as being 120, and sexual maturity around 12-13 (historically, it seems to be getting younger but that is another topic) that's roughly 10-12% of the way through that lifespan. Apply that 10-12% to people who lived to be 900 and you come to right about 100 years old.

So that is not unbelievable.

cgb2 wrote:
Or I could say "if Yah wanting to show only direct ancestors of Noah, only they were relevant. At what age they were when their decendants were born sets timespan calculations for Yah's prophesies (4k Yah, 6k Yah)....and even if redundant to other timespans mentioned serves a checksum comfirmation (also guarding against corruption if it conflicts to look closer). Breif mentions of Qayin and increasing wickedness of mankind to explain the flood and why.


That is a possibility, but doesn't seem to fit the pattern elsewhere in Scripture. Every other genealogy given starts with the first born and goes on, many giving us names in the genealogy that will never appear again and thus irrelevant.

cgb2 wrote:
I'll choose the later because it makes sense. The many work-arounds, each opening a new can-of-worms to justify "other humans existing prior to Adam/Chawah" wears me out.

Occam's Razor: "It is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected."

BTW: I've checked to verify much of YY, ItG, QP and found most all to be spot on....but this tiny portion of YY Genesis volume gives me a brainache. Yep, not even essential to relationship w/Yah and salvation by any stretch.


I think I have the opposite view than you in this case. To me the existence of humans outside the garden prior to Adam just seems to make more sense more easily fit the facts than Adam and Chawah being the first and only humans on the planet. To me it seems there is to much to explain away, work arounds in your words, for them to be the only people. Like Is aid though this isn't a big deal.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline dajstill  
#15 Posted : Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:15:40 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
One reason I think there were people outside of the garden is found in Genesis 1: 23. When Adam was presented with Chawah he declares:

"For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." What did Adam know about this concept? What mother and father was he "leaving". Or, was he seeing that he too was going to have the type of human relationships of those outside the garden?
Offline cgb2  
#16 Posted : Thursday, November 1, 2012 12:00:24 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
^ From mammals as examples?

Interesting that ISR1998 puts quotes as adam saying just v23. Other versions have a period (but no quote marks), some have a comma (but no quote marks) at the end of v23. Wonder whether Adam said v24, or Yah did?..or another statement like v25?

Gen 2:22 And the rib which יהוה Elohim had taken from the man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
Gen 2:23 And the man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one is called ‘woman,’ because she was taken out of man.”
Gen 2:24 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, yet they were not ashamed.
Offline dajstill  
#17 Posted : Thursday, November 1, 2012 1:09:13 PM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
cgb2 wrote:
^ From mammals as examples?




I am not sure what mammals would be examples of a man leaving his father and mother and cleaving to his wife. Many mammals don't mate exclusively, many kick their children out of the herd, clan, or whatever family structure we call it long before they have found a mating partner. I am not sure I know of a mammal species in which a male stays with the father and the mother only until he has found a "wife".

Would man pattern his lifestyle after that of animals? That kind of messes up the concept of man having a special and exclusive relationship with YHWH. This declaration was made before they were kicked out of the garden.
Offline cgb2  
#18 Posted : Friday, November 2, 2012 7:36:50 AM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
^ OK I had a weak argument, although at least Adam could relate to parents and offspring. I suppose pack, pride, pod mammals do have males that show affection for their own young but also drive away young male offspring before sexual maturity (preventing inbreeding and to seek a mate elsewhere).

I suppose this topic had already been beat to death enough so readers can choose. I'm no longer of such a strong opinion either, because it's not even an essential doctrine to divide over.

Maybe a graceful end to this string with some humor?
THis Emo Phillips DIE HERETIC video is really funny:
https://www.youtube.com/...ppfs&feature=related
Offline cgb2  
#19 Posted : Saturday, February 21, 2015 7:33:49 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
Bump. This thread is an example of what a logical, repectful debate used to look like...even when disagreeing with Yada's point of view.
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.