A Proud Christian "Gundamentalist"

Originally posted by kirksey957
How can we rule over them if they were created first? You used the often used example that women must be in subjection to men as they were created second. Isn't it true that arguing who was created first is simply a lame ass excuse to justify a rather odd position?

Is that the only part of all the verses I posted that you saw? Man, you must be dense.

Originally posted by kirksey957
How can we rule over them if they were created first? You used the often used example that women must be in subjection to men as they were created second. Isn't it true that arguing who was created first is simply a lame ass excuse to justify a rather odd position?

Good argument; an even better one is the concept that Adam and Eve were not the first created humans. A closer examination of Genesis reveals thhat the writer never syas implicitely that they were the first. Anectdotal evidence in subsequent chapters proves otherwise; i.e. Cain fled to Nod and married, and built a city...who did he marry, and for whom did he build a city?

Originally posted by kirksey957
How about a tent revival? Would that be OK?

A tent revival consist of the congregation, they are just outside instead of in the building.

Originally posted by duecer
Good argument; an even better one is the concept that Adam and Eve were not the first created humans. A closer examination of Genesis reveals thhat the writer never syas implicitely that they were the first. Anectdotal evidence in subsequent chapters proves otherwise; i.e. Cain fled to Nod and married, and built a city...who did he marry, and for whom did he build a city?

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Originally posted by pritybetta
Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

If you could read hebrew, you would know the distintion between Adam (hebrew for man) and Ha-Adam (mankind)...guess which words were used there? need a hint?

Originally posted by duecer
If you could read hebrew, you would know the distintion between Adam (hebrew for man) and Ha-Adam (mankind)...guess which words were used there? need a hint?

The word used there was "awdawn".

H121
אדם
'âdâm
aw-dawm'
The same as H120; Adam, the name of the first man, also of a place in Palestine: - Adam.

Originally posted by pritybetta
The word used there was "awdawn".

H121
אדם
'âdâm
aw-dawm'
The same as H120; Adam, the name of the first man, also of a place in Palestine: - Adam.

In Adams geneology yes, but not in the creation text; and it is not used consitantly in the verse you sited.

Originally posted by duecer
The Bible is the word of God, not the words of God. They are a collection of writings written by[b] people they are flavored with the cultural prejudices of the time they were written in, and should be viewed in that light. We all know that humans fail God all the time, and in this case, it is no different. I would suggest you read the book "Misqouting Je ll that would prefer this be in debates, I don't have the ability to move the thread...sorry.[/b]

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If these scritpures are true then why would the Lord let his Word be flavored with the cultural prejudices of the time if it was not for everyone to fallow?

BTW, I thought this is the 'debate' forum.

Originally posted by duecer
In Adams geneology yes, but not in the creation text; and it is not used consitantly in the verse you sited.

Excuse me, but the same word was used all throught the OT. Now how is it not used consitantly in the verse I sited?

You always say I am using verses out of context, however, you never say how. You never explain why you think they are used out of context, you just say they are with no proof. If you can not explain to me so others can see then how am I, or they, to know for sure that what you say is correct. You just try to refer me to a book that is not from the Bible but from man. You try to make it look like I am somehow twisting scripture but you never explain how.

Originally posted by pritybetta
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for ...[text shortened]... f the time if it was not for everyone to fallow?

BTW, I thought this is the 'debate' forum.

the proper place for this debate is in the spirituality forum.


Deciding what the "laws" will be, and prophecy are 2 totally different thing...totally. I hope you realise that.

As for the 2Ti qoute: True all scripture is given by inspiration from God, I don't disagree with that statement in general. However, God inspires people, yet people (who are fallible) actually write down the words. They are flavored by the writers personality and reflect their "voice". As far as the historical accuracy of the books themselves, again I would recommend "Misqouting Jesus".

Originally posted by pritybetta
Excuse me, but the same word was used all throught the OT. Now how is it not used consitantly in the verse I sited?

You always say I am using verses out of context, however, you never say how. You never explain why you think they are used out of context, you just say they are with no proof. If you can not explain to me so others can see then how am I, ...[text shortened]... rom man. You try to make it look like I am somehow twisting scripture but you never explain how.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=0120&t=KJV

(part of context is also cultural, and knowing when these are cultural issues, and when they are spiritual)

Originally posted by pritybetta
What dasis do I have? Well, the Bible.

1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1 ...[text shortened]... thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The Bible also says that working on the Sabbath is a sin that's punishable by death (Exodus 35:2). Do you believe literally in everything that's written in the Bible?

Originally posted by karnachz
The Bible also says that working on the Sabbath is a sin that's punishable by death (Exodus 35:2). Do you believe literally in everything that's written in the Bible?

So you think Jesus broke the law when he healed on the Sabbath, or his apostles when they picked corn on the Sabbath? The law about the Sabbath was a shadow of our rest in Christ. It was explainning that we will not be doing work when we are resting in Christ because we would have no need to do so.

Originally posted by duecer
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=0120&t=KJV

(part of context is also cultural, and knowing when these are cultural issues, and when they are spiritual)

What you posted was only saying what the word 'man' may mean, however in most of the verses in the first few chapters of Genesis uses the phrase 'the man' meaning only one man, thus refering to Adam as the first man.

I am not trying to say you are wrong here, I am just trying to find out what it is you are meaning. I will try to study more about this, however at this point I am not seeing anything that makes me believe that when Genesis is refering to Adam it is really meaning mankind.

Originally posted by pritybetta
What you posted was only saying what the word 'man' may mean, however in most of the verses in the first few chapters of Genesis uses the phrase 'the man' meaning only one man, thus refering to Adam as the first man.

I am not trying to say you are wrong here, I am just trying to find out what it is you are meaning. I will try to study more about this, ...[text shortened]... ng that makes me believe that when Genesis is refering to Adam it is really meaning mankind.

further into that site (I didn't want to post duel links) the use of Adam to mean the person is primarily used in the second chapter. In the first chapter the usage and inference is of mankind. Adam was created on the 8th day (second chapter) to tend to God's garden in Eden.