How many Adams?

[wmfinck]

Paul of Tarsus called the patriarch Adam "the first man Adam". That means that Adam had to be the first man. Ostensibly, since there were certainly other hominids here before Adam, that leads us to conclude that they should not be considered "man"!!!

Here is for all of those who think that some "adam" was created by God before Adam!
http://christogenea.org/content/christogenea-saturdays-october-5th-2013-explaining-two-seedline-part-1-pragmatic-genesis

[Staropramen]

Great show I listened last night at work. SB made a very good analogy regarding names in Slavic languages and how they change depending on how they are used in the sentence. In the Czech Republic I was addressed/referred to as "Allen", "Allen-eh", "Allenovy", "Allenou" etc. Took some getting used to. But I didn't become multiple people! The thing that astonishes me most about these ridiculous theories that attempt to make multiple Adams is the total disregard for the fact that Adam means WHITE MAN. Even if there were multiple Adams how do niggers and chinamen figure into the picture?

[Joe]

I enjoyed that show as well, it was water-tight when they are showing how Adam is used through the rest of Scripture, how one could not have the image -and- Spirit if you follow some others' logic (also in Gen1&2 overview).

My current topic/question is to do with Genesis, and I have been focusing on that ...I can't find what I am looking for on the plurality of creation (a race of Adam) in ch1 followed by the singular or parable creation in ch2.
I am sure I will come across a more in-depth answer eventually, but so that I can continue, am I right to assume that a race was created in ch1, and that ch2 simply focuses on one man of that race, a particular patriarch or was it simply being used as a parable to describe the nature of creation/Adam described in ch1?

Lastly something I thought of when listening to the Elohim discussion is where Henry says:

In these verses, I. Here is a name given to the Creator which we have not yet met with, and that is Jehovah - the LORD, in capital letters, which are constantly used in our English translation to intimate that in the original it is Jehovah. All along, in the first chapter, he was called Elohim - a God of power; but now Jehovah Elohim - a God of power and perfection, a finishing God. As we find him known by his name Jehovah when he appeared to perform what he had promised (Exo_6:3), so now we have him known by that name, when he had perfected what he had begun. Jehovah is that great and incommunicable name of God which denotes his having his being of himself, and his giving being to all things; fitly therefore is he called by that name now that heaven and earth are finished.

[Filidh]

the name really doesnt matter at all, its what's beneath the name that counts.

think about it for a bit: when moses asked for gods name, god responded saying 'i am who i am', pronounced in hebrew as yahweh.

moses asked for gods name, and god said, 'i am who i am'.

he is who he is.

if i asked for your name, and you said to me, 'i am who i am', that wouldnt be you telling me your personal name, it would be you saying that the name of something doesn't matter.

yahweh could be named fred and he'd still be the everliving creator of existence.

were able to call him god, christ, lord, father, dad, creator, providence, almighty. the name doesnt really matter that much. because its just an identifier of the substance, and the substance is what matters.

[Joe]

^I thought about what you said and know where you are coming from, I agree entirely. But I also realised that some people use to say to me 'I believe in God', but they were not Christian nor did they know which God nor have a 'close' relationship with Him; they didn't follow His Laws, they didn't really seek him ...just a vague feeling, this is a feeling I kept seeking after. They could have been told 'all gods are the same' or 'all gods lead to the same end' thus 'all people and their gods are equal' and be easily swept into the new-age drivel, that all people seek God and that they all just have different names for the same 'god', that muhammed was seeking the truth also.

If someone said to me the false 'allah' is the name of 'god' I would know which direction he is looking in (if he was white, the others are wandering stars), I would know that his ego had obscured the right way and he had become lost.

El/Elohim means God, but Yahweh is more specific. Yahweh, an identifier, signifies where you are looking ...it is almost like acknowledging that you are looking to the One True God because of the spirit He gave to you. A gift, I think that only white men can articulate the True name of God in their hearts, with groanings which cannot be uttered (kind-of like what you were saying).

I am probably going to be shot-down for this. So be it, I have been studying hard and honestly.

[bahr]

I think the name of our Father is of utmost importance. Why? To avoid the worst thing in this world, as the Scriptures teach us effectively: confusion.

As mortals, we must communicate with each other, and the only way to communicate is by the mean of language. If the language we use is confuse, we cannot communicate properly. A "thing" must absolutely be called with a precise word to designate it, we all know that. All sort of conflicts could have been avoided between us if so much words haven't been made confuse in the first place.

Remember Adam in the garden naming all the animals. Why do you think that event is recorded if it was not important?

Every important character in the Scriptures was given a precise name telling exacly what he represented. Abram -> Abraham; not Jim or Teddy, but Abraham.

Names are very important.

If a precise word is essential to designate anything, how much more important is it to have a precise name for the most precious of all things, our Father? We can't afford to be imprecise about Him; His Word is unique, His Word IS Him, and so we must establish a precise and unequivocal correspondance between His Word and Him. That is the only sure way to identify Him properly. He must be designated by the name He gave us, otherwise the ennemy, who is so clever, can easily mislead us.

Having said that, I hope my english was not too confuse.

[Kentucky]

the name really doesnt matter at all, its what's beneath the name that counts.

And sometimes the word 'name' should have been translated 'authority.' Which begs the question: which is more important? the name of God or the authority of God?

were able to call him god, christ, lord, father, dad, creator, providence, almighty. the name doesnt really matter that much. because its just an identifier of the substance, and the substance is what matters.

The "sacred name" debate is a perfect petri dish for the enemy's tactic to divide and conquer. This argumentation has been going on for 20 years within CI and there is no consensus. Many of my friends are partial to using Yahweh and Yashua, although they do not condemn me for sticking with God and Jesus. I appreciate their diplomacy moreso than the rabid wordists who will tell people they are not Christian if you don't believe it the way they say it is. I think a greater threat to the integrity of our Creator is the creeping denial of the deity of Christ and the catholic trinity. Our faith is in the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

On the issue of "how many Adams?" is again something argued that need not be. For thousands of years the Pentateuch was unnumbered; there were no numerical chapters or verse identifiers. Therefore, the narrative was continuous and had the divine continuity for our edification. A Chapter one Adam as opposed to a Chapter two Adam is superficial and ridiculous in light of the original order of God's Word. The numbering system makes it easier to find things, but we should keep in mind that it is a man made device.

Mark

[wmfinck]

Lastly something I thought of when listening to the Elohim discussion is where Henry says:

In these verses, I. Here is a name given to the Creator which we have not yet met with, and that is Jehovah - the LORD, in capital letters, which are constantly used in our English translation to intimate that in the original it is Jehovah. All along, in the first chapter, he was called Elohim - a God of power; but now Jehovah Elohim - a God of power and perfection, a finishing God. As we find him known by his name Jehovah when he appeared to perform what he had promised (Exo_6:3), so now we have him known by that name, when he had perfected what he had begun. Jehovah is that great and incommunicable name of God which denotes his having his being of himself, and his giving being to all things; fitly therefore is he called by that name now that heaven and earth are finished.

Joe, what are you referring to? Who is this? It certainly has nothing to do with the program link posted originally (the one I did Saturday with SB). Please be a little more specific.

[bahr]

Mark,

I understand your point of view. We, in CII2SL, agree on the fundamentals. In that context, we can communicate on the same ground. But when we try to talk to White people in general, especially, I must say, here in Europe, words like "God", "Jesus", "religion", etc are so charged with Catholic false teachings that it is like trying to communicate in two different languages, with different roots.

On the other hand, It is true that, whenever I use the word "Yahweh" on some european forum, I'm immediately perceived as a jew, because, you see, everybody knows that the jealous, cruel and racist "Yahweh" is the infamous G-d of the jews, while the oh so loving, peaceful and universal "Jesus" is the God of the Christians!

I think a greater threat to the integrity of our Creator is the creeping denial of the deity of Christ and the catholic trinity.

Absolutely true, the two being linked. The "Son", little by little through time, become more and more a mere man whose only laws are "love" and "render to Caesar...", while the "Father", little by little, become distant, abstract, an anonymous creator without any law at all: "let there be things here and there, and let them take care of themselves".

[Kentucky]

Mark,

I understand your point of view. We, in CII2SL, agree on the fundamentals. In that context, we can communicate on the same ground. But when we try to talk to White people in general, especially, I must say, here in Europe, words like "God", "Jesus", "religion", etc are so charged with Catholic false teachings that it is like trying to communicate in two different languages, with different roots.

On the other hand, It is true that, whenever I use the word "Yahweh" on some european forum, I'm immediately perceived as a jew, because, you see, everybody knows that the jealous, cruel and racist "Yahweh" is the infamous G-d of the jews, while the oh so loving, peaceful and universal "Jesus" is the God of the Christians!

Yes, you're right. It reminds me of Paul saying, "To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some" I Cor. 9:22.

Mark