The First Man(???)

[newgene87]

So I just noticed something shakey after reading over about the Creation teaching from ray...Now, from a email

"Chapter two does not contradict chapter one. The order in chapter one is plants, animals, and then humanity.  Is this not the order found in the geologic table?  Chapter two does not recount the creation of humanity, but rather the creation of Adam and Eve.  In Genesis 1:26 God "made" [Heb: 'asah'] male and female. In Gen. 2:6 God "formed" [Heb: 'yatsar'] Adam--two difference Hebrew words: two different formations.  Notice that it doesn't say in chapter 2 verse 3 that there was no man on earth at this time, but rather that there was "no man to till the ground."  There were men, but they were hunters/gatherers, not farmers.  God is now going to make a more advance human to cultivate and farm the land. 

And i thought back to 1 Corinthians 15:44 - "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul..." and "The first man is of the earth, earthy" --- wouldnt that mean ADAM, of Genesis 2, was the FIRST MAN?? BUT Ray says, there were men BEFORE Adam - but Adam was just the first farmer??

It just hit me. Just need a little clarification

[Dave in Tenn]

That's not all he said, 'that Adam was the first farmer'.  That's not all Paul said either, come to think of it.

"So it is written..."

Try Gen. 1 and 2 in the CLV, where you'll get a more accurate verb tense translation and 'concordant' translations for all the words.   

It's also helpful to remember that 'scientfic' or 'colloquial' uses of the word 'man' -- even Adam --are not necessarily scriptural uses of the word translated 'man'.  The 'Adam' of I Cor. 15 is a transliteration of the Hebrew word 'adam' of Genesis 1 and 2. 

What does any of that mean?  It means there's more than one way to skin a cat.    

This has come up many times, and there's no easy answer for it.  Sorry.  I think I might get it, but I can't prove it and couldn't 'teach ' it if my life depended on it.  So I won't. 

 

[Kat]

Hi Eugene,

There is one very huge difference between Adam and any other humans, that science prove lived on earth long before Adam. Adam was the first man that knew of and talked to God! As Ray said, "God is now going to make a more advance human to cultivate and farm the land," and also God is beginning His work of salvation with this "first" man.

1Co 15:45  And so it is written, The firstG4413 man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

G4413 prōtos - Contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all), former.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[ez2u]

which are we?

[dave]

You have raised a very interesting question, very interesting in deed.

[lilitalienboi16]

Newgene,

Adam is as much the first "man" as Christ is the last "man."

There is no contradiction here.

[newgene87]

I will continue to pray about this. This has become a unfruitful thought so I want to apologize. I pray this has not become a rock of offense to anyone.

Romans 14:19
Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

I just read over this and it seems like I was searching for a contradiction on Rays part, but no, it's just something that's unclear. I pray for the others to stay prayed up and I will continue to read these WONDERFUL papers which has been changing my life. I awoke this morning and read Genesis 5:1-2 and it took me 3 steps backwards in that God called "THEIR NAME ADAM". Ugh, these circles are squaring up. Well, may we all (INCLUDING ME) seek which make for peace and edify one another. The goal is the LAST Adam anyway

Still Growing
Eugene

[mharrell08]

So I just noticed something shakey after reading over about the Creation teaching from ray...Now, from a email

"Chapter two does not contradict chapter one. The order in chapter one is plants, animals, and then humanity.  Is this not the order found in the geologic table?  Chapter two does not recount the creation of humanity, but rather the creation of Adam and Eve.  In Genesis 1:26 God "made" [Heb: 'asah'] male and female. In Gen. 2:6 God "formed" [Heb: 'yatsar'] Adam--two difference Hebrew words: two different formations.  Notice that it doesn't say in chapter 2 verse 3 that there was no man on earth at this time, but rather that there was "no man to till the ground."  There were men, but they were hunters/gatherers, not farmers.  God is now going to make a more advance human to cultivate and farm the land. 

And i thought back to 1 Corinthians 15:44 - "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul..." and "The first man is of the earth, earthy" --- wouldnt that mean ADAM, of Genesis 2, was the FIRST MAN?? BUT Ray says, there were men BEFORE Adam - but Adam was just the first farmer??

It just hit me. Just need a little clarification

It's a parable, Adam is no more the first man on earth literally than Christ is the last adam literally. The parable basically shows the contrast from our beginning and end.

[dave]

What is the parable? Gen. 1:26-27 Gen.2:7?

[mharrell08]

I wasn't referring to either...the passage in question was 1 Cor 15:45.

[newgene87]

I wasn't referring to either...the passage in question was 1 Cor 15:44.

Ok.....your saying

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

a "scripture"

Genesis 2:7
...and man became a living soul.

Is a parable? Cause paul was simply quoting it, but obviously added "FIRST"; but according to Scripture, Adam would be the first man - but Ray was revealing that Gen 1:26 proves he wasn't. If thats a parable, genesis is a parable. Which could make Genesis 5:1-2 state that ADAM could be plural and the last Adam was ONE, Christ. Maybe that would conclude that ADAM wasnt just one man but then again that contradict Paul in other areas. Idk, but saying its a parable would be confusing...well to me that is. Regardless, I'm keeping this in prayer. Love to all

Eugene

[dave]

I can understand that, still Paul says 1Co 15:44  it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body;
1Co 15:45  so also it hath been written, `The first man Adam became a living creature,' the last Adam is for a life-giving spirit,
1Co 15:46  but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural, afterwards that which is spiritual.
I can see this as a parable.
The wonder is in Gen. 1:26-27 that "God is creating humanity" and it's been said that this was the less advanced humanity, but was this humanity man? before Gen. 2:7 the farmer and tiller.

So, the question is, if there was "humanity" before, that man, Paul calls the "first Adam" perhaps the key is "man became a living soul" the humanity of Gen.1:26-27 were not living souls?

[mharrell08]

It's a parable because Paul isn't giving a literal history lesson, neither phrase is literal. First man vs Last man is a spiritual condition. Read the entire chapter and not focus on the one word 'first'.

[dave]

It's a parable because Paul isn't giving a literal history lesson, neither phrase is literal. First man vs Last man is a spiritual condition. Read the entire chapter and not focus on the one word 'first'.

I understand that, so then all the humanity that God created in Gen.1:26-27 is not or was not man? Paul's ICor. parable speaks of Gen. 2:7 and we disregard Gen. 1:26-27

[mharrell08]

It's a parable because Paul isn't giving a literal history lesson, neither phrase is literal. First man vs Last man is a spiritual condition. Read the entire chapter and not focus on the one word 'first'.

I understand that, so then all the humanity that God created in Gen.1:26-27 is not or was not man? Paul's ICor. parable speaks of Gen. 2:7 and we disregard Gen. 1:26-27

Paul is speaking of our spiritual condition, not who was created when. This is not the chapter to gain insight into when mankind was first created. That's not Paul's point at all in this chapter.

[dave]

It's a parable because Paul isn't giving a literal history lesson, neither phrase is literal. First man vs Last man is a spiritual condition. Read the entire chapter and not focus on the one word 'first'.

I understand that, so then all the humanity that God created in Gen.1:26-27 is not or was not man? Paul's ICor. parable speaks of Gen. 2:7 and we disregard Gen. 1:26-27

Paul is speaking of our spiritual condition, not who was created when. This is not the chapter to gain insight into when mankind was first created. That's not Paul's point at all in this chapter.

I am not asking to cause a problem but I do not see 1Co 15:45  so also it hath been written, `The first man Adam became a living creature, speaking of our spiritual condition.
Paul states that, (and you say forget the "first")   so "the man Adam became a living creature." Then does that mean that the humanity created in Gen. were not living creatures?

[mharrell08]

Jesus is not literally the last Adam, which is the 2nd part of this parable. If you know that is a parable, why is it so hard to understand the first part is a parable as well? Yes, Paul quotes from Genesis, but he's not teaching about what people were created when.

The questions you ask about Genesis are NOT found in this chapter so why continue to seek from it? This verse comes up again and again since Ray's 2008 conference with the same theory: Paul says 'first man' regarding Adam so that contradicts every thing else. Paul also says Christ was the last Adam, yet no one ever attempts to explain how that could be literal as well. It's not half literal half parable, the entire statement is a parable.

[newgene87]

Jesus is not literally the last Adam, which is the 2nd part of this parable. If you know that is a parable, why is it so hard to understand the first part is a parable as well? Yes, Paul quotes from Genesis, but he's not teaching about what people were created when.

The questions you ask about Genesis are NOT found in this chapter so why continue to seek from it? This verse comes up again and again since Ray's 2008 conference with the same theory: Paul says 'first man' regarding Adam so that contradicts every thing else. Paul also says Christ was the last Adam, yet no one ever attempts to explain how that could be literal as well. It's not half literal half parable, the entire statement is a parable.

ooooooooo the light bulb just clicked on  . ok, it IS a parable not a history lesson. Clear as crystal. and obviously not the point of Paul writing this. well, you solved my enigma . Glory be to His name

regardless, how else Cain had a wife? Gen 4:7. regardless it's solved for me. Bless you harrell
Eugene

[newgene87]

Okay - bear me with my spiritual fathers and mothers. This verse just hit me today like a train and it brought this topic back up. Again - I ONLY WANT TO STAY FAITHFUL TO THE SCRIPTURES so i'm asking you all because you all will seek to give a sound answer.

So, it's implied that God made MAN back in Genesis 1. Then Genesis 2 comes along..."... there was no human to serve the ground." (v.5) and this Man, who was Adam(man) is to be the one to serve the ground. so, OUT OF this man, is formed WOMAN.

"...Elohim is building the angular organ, which He takes from the human (man), into a woman..." (v.22)

Soooooo THIS Woman is later, after the temptation, partaking of the fruit, curses pronounced by God --- called EVE - and i'm catching this now..."for she becomes the MOTHER of all the living." (3:20)

So Eve - which i originally thought was the first Woman is called here the Mother of All Living. so um...*scratching my head*...wouldnt that make her the FIRST Woman...denying thought of the men and women in Genesis 1??? I mean, i have a Jewish Study bible which i try to refer to at times in interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures and it implies that throughout the years, Genesis 2 was just a detailed account of how man was created and Genesis 3 was how man became to be leading on through the rest of scriptures {creating in image of God (prophecy) (ch.1) --- formed of the dust of the groud (ch.2) --- becoming like God, knowing good and evil (3:22) .... so, um...doesnt Eve, being called the Mother of All Living, make her just that...the mother of all living? meaning she gave birth to what man is today?? again trying to stay faithful to the scriptures that's all. still trying to wrap my mind around men were around before Adam, which an intepretation can be seen that the man and woman of Genesis 1 was later on described out to be in Genesis 2. Like, Genesis 1,2 and 3 COULD be thousands, thousands, thousands of years leading up to Adam being formed, animals and man. or....the 6th day was a prophecy seeing God formed the animals in chapter 2 and Adam named them? and Adam and the Woman, with whom they were to till the ground. I mean i see Genesis 1:12 - "the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind" and the man comes along in chapter 2 who is to serve this. okay, im getting off track...i just noticed that Eve was the mother of all living so wouldnt that make her the first woman? Just my thoughts seeking clarification. In love

and my original "Paul" concern is over with

Eugene

[Gina]

That's a good, honest question. 

Does it sound like a parable?  "for she becomes the mother of all the living." (3:20) 

What, did she cease being their mother when they were dead?  You know there's more to this than is apparent to the eye.  It has something to do with her seed and descendents and Jesus being savior of all and how God is not the God of the dead but of THE LIVING?  Does that help?  At all... ?