Did Paul believe God made one human who is father of all mankind?

[CHR_Iam_IST]

And?

It is written, "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:10ff)";
The long held belief that GOD ONLY used 2 originally sinless people to begin populating the entire earth, DOES NOT stand up to "sound" doctrinal scrutiny when soundly, carefully and reasonably examined (for example, who are those that Cain is worried about, after murdering his brother Abel, when he says, ". . . I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me" in Genesis 4:14, if there is ONLY Adam, Eve, & Cain populating the earth at that time???); and is shown to be very doubtful &/or questionable as can be, especially when one considers, AMONG SO MANY OTHER infallible proofs, how HE (GOD) seems to have had to use 6 SIN TAINTED people (Noah's 3 sons & their 3 wives) to begin RE-populating the entire earth after the Flood.

 

[Bradley D]

And THE LORD GOD took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. (Genesis 2:15)

And man has been doing a lousy job dressing it and keeping it since then.

 

[Gary K]

It is written, "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:10ff)";
The long held belief that GOD ONLY used 2 originally sinless people to begin populating the entire earth, DOES NOT stand up to "sound" doctrinal scrutiny when soundly, carefully and reasonably examined (for example, who are those that Cain is worried about, after murdering his brother Abel, when he says, ". . . I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me" in Genesis 4:14, if there is ONLY Adam, Eve, & Cain populating the earth at that time???); and is shown to be very doubtful &/or questionable as can be, especially when one considers, AMONG SO MANY OTHER infallible proofs, how HE (GOD) seems to have had to use 6 SIN TAINTED people (Noah's 3 sons & their 3 wives) to begin RE-populating the entire earth after the Flood.

Huge assumptions on your part. It's as if you think the recorded births before the flood were the only births.

Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

The Bible says this again and again. Your assumption that humans existed besides those created and mentioned is a very large assumption. It's hardly sound doctrine to make assumptions not supported by the Bible.

 

[CHR_Iam_IST]

Huge assumptions on your part. It's as if you think the recorded births before the flood were the only births.

My assumptions are no more huge &/or UNsound than your assumptions; especially when you purport to assume what I "think"!
So to clear it up for you as to what I think, based on precept upon precept, etc.: my contention is that Adam of Genesis 2 was NOT the FIRST nor the ONLY human that GOD Created, and anyone who believe him to be either (FIRST &/or ONLY) is NOTHING MORE than someone with a 'huge assumption' regarding this matter, because Scripture, in Genesis Chapters 1-4 NEVER CLEARLY tells us one way or the other, no matter WHO or What you yourself choose to believe.
To clear it up further for you: I believe Adam, of Genesis 2, was just 1 of many "sons of GOD (having no [human] biological parents)"; and FURTHER, I can provide much more Scriptural PROOF for believing that, than you and/or anyone else can provide for believing "the sons of GOD" were [fallen] angels.

 

[Right Divider]

So to clear it up for you as to what I think, based on precept upon precept, etc.: my contention is that Adam of Genesis 2 was NOT the FIRST nor the ONLY human that GOD Created, ...

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

Gen 2:7 KJV And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[CHR_Iam_IST]

Great point Right Divider! Now then, consider the following:
Was not the first man Adam also the first man to have [FREE] access to THE TREE of LIFE, that he (Adam) and ONLY he had been SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED by THE LORD GOD "to keep"? This would have made Adam the first man . . . POSITIONALLY (since your chosen quoted Scriptural reference is OBVIOUSLY a COMPARISON of Position rather than of Chronology), but not necessarily Chronologically, right? And being in such close proximity to the TREE of LIFE, along with being the first man who had become a living soul (via THE BREATH of GOD), seems to me to be a better fit than ALL the traditional gobbledygook that we've speculated and assumed down through the centuries that leaves us with more questions (ESPECIALLY from unbelievers &/or atheists) than answers, huh.

 

[Right Divider]

Great point Right Divider! Now then, consider the following:
Was not the first man Adam also the first man to have [FREE] access to THE TREE of LIFE, that he (Adam) and ONLY he had been SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED by THE LORD GOD "to keep"? This would have made Adam the first man . . . POSITIONALLY (since your chosen quoted Scriptural reference is OBVIOUSLY a COMPARISON of Position rather than of Chronology), but not necessarily Chronologically, right? And being in such close proximity to the TREE of LIFE, along with being the first man who had become a living soul (via THE BREATH of GOD), seems to me to be a better fit than ALL the traditional gobbledygook that we've speculated and assumed down through the centuries that leaves us with more questions (ESPECIALLY from unbelievers &/or atheists) than answers, huh.

The Bible does not call Adam the "first man" positionally, but literally.

 

[CHR_Iam_IST]

The Bible does not call Adam the "first man" positionally, but literally.

What the Bible calls him is "Adam" which is the same Hebrew word for "man";
Also, by your reasoning, JESUS CHRIST was/is "literally" the "last man"???

 

[Right Divider]

What the Bible calls him is "Adam" which is the same Hebrew word for "man";
Also, by your reasoning, JESUS CHRIST was/is "literally" the "last man"???

You are confusing different parts of the Bible.

 

[CHR_Iam_IST]

You are confusing different parts of the Bible.

Then don't just ACCUSE me! SHOW EXACTLY, the "different parts of the Bible", that you're accusing me of "confusing".

 

[Right Divider]

Then don't just ACCUSE me!

It was a comment, not an accusation.

SHOW EXACTLY, the "different parts of the Bible", that you're accusing me of "confusing".

The Bible clearly shows that Adam was the FIRST MAN and that all humans are his descendants.

 

[CHR_Iam_IST]

It was a comment, not an accusation.

If you say so.

The Bible clearly shows that Adam was the FIRST MAN and that all humans are his descendants.

So then, having taken 1Cor. 15:45 (The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.) out of its intended context as a positional comparison rather than a chronology proof, you NOW have no other Scripture whatsoever to support your belief that Adam was the very first (and only) human male that GOD Created (Who then do you believe the sons of GOD were . . . and WHERE ARE they NOW???).
You have every right to your opinion, as do I have a right to my opinion(s); but unlike you my beliefs &/or opinions are based on the ETIRETY/TOTALITY of [ALL] Scripture (that cannot be broken), and not just one verse that you misguidedly believe "clearly shows that Adam was the FIRST MAN and that all humans are his descendants".

 

[Right Divider]

If you say so.

So then, having taken 1Cor. 15:45 (The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.) out of its intended context as a positional comparison rather than a chronology proof, you NOW have no other Scripture whatsoever to support your belief that Adam was the very first (and only) human male that GOD Created (Who then do you believe the sons of GOD were . . . and WHERE ARE they NOW???).
You have every right to your opinion, as do I have a right to my opinion(s); but unlike you my beliefs &/or opinions are based on the ETIRETY/TOTALITY of [ALL] Scripture (that cannot be broken), and not just one verse that you misguidedly believe "clearly shows that Adam was the FIRST MAN and that all humans are his descendants".

Sons of God does not always mean men.

Again... the Bible says "THE FIRST MAN.... Adam".

 

[CHR_Iam_IST]

Sons of God does not always mean men.

If it "does not always mean men", what/WHO else could it mean?
Where in Scripture does it mean anything/anyone else?

 

[Right Divider]

If it "does not always mean men", what/WHO else could it mean?
Where in Scripture does it mean anything/anyone else?

Job 38

 

[CHR_Iam_IST]

Job 38

So then, who/what (in Job 38) were they, if they were not men?

 

[Right Divider]

So then, who/what (in Job 38) were they, if they were not men?

Point is that they are NOT men. MEN were not there at the creation of the world.

 

[CHR_Iam_IST]

Point is that they are NOT men. MEN were not there at the creation of the world.

Point is, NOWHERE in Job 38 is the word "Creation" stated, although GOD rhetorically ask Job where he had been when HE laid out Creation's foundation; but that aside, if the morning stars had been around long enough to have sang together, why do you believe there could not have been a long enough expiration of time for men, in the persons of the sons of GOD, to be there to have shouted for joy? But since you don't believe them to be "MEN", WHO-WHO-WHO do you opine the sons of GOD of Job 38 were???
BTW, when you're hesitant and indecisive answering simple questions it calls into question & raises SERIOUS DOUBTS as to whether you're sure about other things you've CLAIMED in this thread!

 

[Right Divider]

Point is, NOWHERE in Job 38 is the word "Creation" stated, although GOD rhetorically ask Job where he had been when HE laid out Creation's foundation; but that aside, if the morning stars had been around long enough to have sang together, why do you believe there could not have been a long enough expiration of time for men, in the persons of the sons of GOD, to be there to have shouted for joy? But since you don't believe them to be "MEN", WHO-WHO-WHO do you opine the sons of GOD of Job 38 were???
BTW, when you're hesitant and indecisive answering simple questions it calls into question & raises SERIOUS DOUBTS as to whether you're sure about other things you've CLAIMED in this thread!

BTW, I don't care what you think... so there's that.

 

[CHR_Iam_IST]

BTW, I don't care what you think... so there's that.