Why was Adam created first?

[robtex]

As Popeye once said, "Just read it the way it was wrote."

Using a qoute from a fictional character in reference to a book many believe to be a work of fiction. Gotta love the irony of that.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

To those who questioned what the English actually means in my discussion of the nature of Adam as he was created perhaps it is the very lack of how to properly read English that leads to so many misunderstandings. Also if the translaters thought that colons and semicolons and other punctuation marks were important in order to properly translate Hebrew into English then I would suppose that is why they are there. Until any of you can prove to me that you are better translators of Hebrew than the translators who compiled the KJV then I will chose to read the English and apply the proper rules of the language. As Popeye once said, "Just read it the way it was wrote."

perhaps you ought to read the preface of the Revised Standard Version. There it lists the many misleading word translations in the KJV that at the time of writing were correct, but these days have a completely different meaning. It is by no means an infallible translation of the Bible.

Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors: (taken from http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html )

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.


There are more on that site, if you want to look. So yes, i would say that the translators weren't flawless in their translation.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Can someone tell me how you get those quote thingies to work?

 

[Aqualung]

Like this. Before a quote you type in

then type in your stuff, and then type [/quote ]. I put in an extra space in the [/quote ] just so the forum wouldn't format it, though.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Can someone tell me how you get those quote thingies to work?

or even easier, press the little button in the bottom right-hand corner of the post that you are reading that says 'quote'...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

There it lists the many misleading word translations in the KJV that at the time of writing were correct.[/quote ].

So yes, i would say that the translators weren't flawless in their translation.[/quote ].

These seem like contradictory statements. Also I don't see anything that says that there is a mistranslation of the verse I referenced.

Perhaps because of the change in meaning or the obsolescence of Old English words is why I use an Old English dictionary in my studies.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

These seem like contradictory statements. Also I don't see anything that says that there is a mistranslation of the verse I referenced.

Perhaps because of the change in meaning or the obsolescence of Old English words is why I use an Old English dictionary in my studies.

Well, like i said, you may like to read into the semi colon, but it is quite apparent, taking into consideration other verses too, that the original writer of that verse meant to say what it says and that is, that God created them male and female. Wouldn't it saved a lot of confusion, had he written, he created him male and female? But he did didn't...see binjamin's post, post 70...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So Adam was a hermaphrodite? Youzer. Frankly I am more comfortable with the
thought that I might share a common ancestor with the great apes than the
thought that I am descended of a hermie. Think I am going with the ape thing.

B.

I find it interesting that unbelievers like to refer to the Creator as some magical being as a form of mockery but prefer to believe that they are the direct descendants of primates. Given the choice (assuming there really is a choice) between being created by an all loving and perfect magician and being descended from King Kong I'll go with the kind magician every time.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, like i said, you may like to read into the semi colon, but it is quite apparent, taking into consideration other verses too, that the original writer of that verse meant to say what it says and that is, that God created them male and female. Wouldn't it saved a lot of confusion, had he written, he created him male and female? But he did didn't...see binjamin's post, post 70...

Theres actually more to it and it refers back to the image of God which was the subject of the sentance that the statement came from. Genesis 5 also backs up the concept in Genesis 1.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Just to give you something to think about... The Torah doesn't have vowels, or semi-colons, or periods, or any of that crap. It's divided into sections called Parsha's.

Ancient Hebrew may not have punctuation but proper English does. the translation of the meaning of the original into English therefore requires punctuation and punctuation attributes meaning and is therefore necessary.

To argue that your interpretation of the bible is right due to grammatical opinion of the people who speak english is inaccurate.

It's not "grammatical opinion." Those are the rules of English.

 

[Merlin]

I find it interesting that unbelievers like to refer to the Creator as some magical being as a form of mockery but prefer to believe that they are the direct descendants of primates. Given the choice (assuming there really is a choice) between being created by an all loving and perfect magician and being descended from King Kong I'll go with the kind magician every time.

Sadly for you, it isn't a choice you can make. 98.5% of our genes are identical with those of the chimpanzee. Evolution just is.

 

[wmam]

Sadly for you, it isn't a choice you can make. 98.5% of our genes are identical with those of the chimpanzee. Evolution just is.

So whats up with the other 1.5%?

 

[Malus 12:9]

"Gen 27: So God created man in his own image" wold have been intriguing, Merlin...

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Sadly for you, it isn't a choice you can make. 98.5% of our genes are identical with those of the chimpanzee. Evolution just is.

If we were a degree or so closer to the sun, or a degree further away
from the sun, we'd either burn or we'd freeze. A small percentage makes a big difference...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sadly for you, it isn't a choice you can make. 98.5% of our genes are identical with those of the chimpanzee. Evolution just is.

What are the assumptions that you are making to imply that there is a correlation between being human and being a chimpanzee?

 

[wmam]

If I've asked once I'll ask yet again................... What of the other 1.5%?


Tic-Toc, Tic-Toc.........

 

[Ronald]

Elementry my dear Watson.

Ge 1:26 ¶ Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

They are in His image, and He is not separated! No mistakes, no after thoughts. Just in due time He brought forth Ahavah out of man. At resurrection we will know why he did what he did. Be patient.

 

[greatcalgarian]

This thread appeared to be moving in the direction of another thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22071&page=1

 

[ChrisP]

What are the assumptions that you are making to imply that there is a correlation between being human and being a chimpanzee?

Physically there's a Correlation I'll agree but beyond that, it's hard to know.

If.... we..... Cooooulld; Talk to the animals, just imagine it!

 

[Malus 12:9]

This thread appeared to be moving in the direction of another thread:

Yeah, you get that.

Merlin, your "research" is quite old, tests have proven that is less than 98.5% since.