First off, I don't mind minor edits to correct spelling or grammar, but please do not add your comments to the quoted text. One, I'm not going to read it, and two, it indicates you're not interested in responding to what I actually said, but rather what you want me to have said.
It's extremely dishonest.
Good.
Don't care.
Duh. My question was about whether you understood the difference between how the two passages were written, that being that the former is a quotation of what Adam literally said, and the latter is narrative (iow, NOT a quotation) about something that happened, not necessarily something that Adam said.
Not in Genesis 3:20, he didn't.
Which is exactly my point.
You're changing the text to fit your beliefs.
That's not good.
Genesis 3:20 is narrative, not quotation.
So she was the mother of the angels?
The mother of all other creatures, such as the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, the fish in the seas?
Do you not see the problem with that?
You're reading into the text something that isn't there.
There were no humans on earth prior to day 6.
The only two humans on earth after day 6 were Adam and Eve.
Aside from Adam and Eve, there were no other humans on the earth prior to Cain. Abel was her second-born.
Adam and Eve had other children after Cain as indicated by the text (Eve is the mother of all living), and of his sisters, one of them he took as his wife.
The last named (at least, as far as Scripture is concerned) person Adam and Eve had was Seth.
As per the above kgov link, there would not have been anywhere near enough time for Eve to have had any other children prior to the fall, and they were kicked out of the garden shortly after their fall, likely by the end of the day they fell.
Adam did not give any reasons for anything in Genesis 3:20.
Adam is not the one speaking in that verse.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
I would much rather you make arguments instead of just mere claims.
It doesn't matter what that way of looking at it is if it contradicts scripture.
And it does.
No, not "of some sort."
He spoke, interacted with man through speech.
None of what God is recorded as saying was anything other than language.
"Word" is a very poor translation of the Greek word "LOGOS."
LOGOS means "logic (it's literally where we get the word logic from), reason."
It would be more accurate to translate John 1:1 as God being reason itself.
There is no such thing as "the human language."
Yes, Genesis 2:19 is the first time Moses recorded a human using language. But it's not the first time someone spoke.
As I pointed out, the first time someone spoke was in Genesis 1:3. "Let there be light."
Supra.
No, Genesis 2:4 onwards is not a new era, different than what was described in Genesis 1.
Chapter 1 was the overview. Chapter 2:4 onwards gets into the details of life in the garden.
Note what verse 5 says, that it is describing a time "before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had GROWN. . . . there was no man to till the ground".
It's describing the period after day 3 and before God created man on day 6.
Creation? No.
God created the elements on day 1, Genesis 1:1.
He made everything in the universe throughout days 2-6 using what He created on day 1.
Man was made from the dust of the ground, yes.
We don't know what Adam said.
All we know, per scripture, is that Adam called her Eve, not because Moses recorded his words, but because Moses recorded that he did so.
To assert that that was what Adam said is to add to scripture, and to go beyond what the text says.
Don't add to scripture.
Don't go beyond what the text says.
Are not the archangels Michael and Gabriel "living"?
What about all the other creatures God made? Are they living, too?
If Eve is the mother of all living, does that mean she is the mother of all creatures that are "living"?
Or perhaps, just maybe, it's not saying anything other than that Eve is the mother of all human beings, being referred to as such before having bore any human beings in her womb?
Correct.
The Hebrew phrase here is "men of name," the idea being that they were famous enough to have been known by their names for their deeds.
Yet, despite being "men of name," their names are not given...
Why is that?
The Bible doesn't say either way.
The problem is this:
"produce one flesh"?
What are you talking about?
The Bible doesn't say "produce one flesh."
It says that a man and a woman "become one flesh."
If you can't even get that much correct, how in the world do you expect to get anything else correct with your theology?
I believe they were only partially human, and likely incapable of a relationship with God, both reasons being why God had to destroy them.
Freaks? Indeed.
Abominations, at the very least.
Being the spawn of demons does.
I recommend reading the following links:
I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I believe that the reason pagan religions have so many gods that act like "men" is due to such "men of renown," their deeds being so legendary that they turned into myths. For example, the Greek gods Zeus, Poseidon, the Titans, etc, the Roman gods Jupiter, Mars, Venus, etc, and plenty of other deities of pagan religions, I'd argue most if not all were stories of the "men of renown" of Genesis 6, or even of the giants that came after the flood, the stories of which were passed down through the generations of humans by Noah's sons.
Again, I point to the fact that they were men of "name," yet their names are not given.
It's extremely dishonest.
Good.
Don't care.
Duh. My question was about whether you understood the difference between how the two passages were written, that being that the former is a quotation of what Adam literally said, and the latter is narrative (iow, NOT a quotation) about something that happened, not necessarily something that Adam said.
Not in Genesis 3:20, he didn't.
Which is exactly my point.
You're changing the text to fit your beliefs.
That's not good.
Genesis 3:20 is narrative, not quotation.
So she was the mother of the angels?
The mother of all other creatures, such as the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, the fish in the seas?
Do you not see the problem with that?
You're reading into the text something that isn't there.
There were no humans on earth prior to day 6.
The only two humans on earth after day 6 were Adam and Eve.
Aside from Adam and Eve, there were no other humans on the earth prior to Cain. Abel was her second-born.
Adam and Eve had other children after Cain as indicated by the text (Eve is the mother of all living), and of his sisters, one of them he took as his wife.
The last named (at least, as far as Scripture is concerned) person Adam and Eve had was Seth.
As per the above kgov link, there would not have been anywhere near enough time for Eve to have had any other children prior to the fall, and they were kicked out of the garden shortly after their fall, likely by the end of the day they fell.
Adam did not give any reasons for anything in Genesis 3:20.
Adam is not the one speaking in that verse.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
I would much rather you make arguments instead of just mere claims.
It doesn't matter what that way of looking at it is if it contradicts scripture.
And it does.
No, not "of some sort."
He spoke, interacted with man through speech.
None of what God is recorded as saying was anything other than language.
"Word" is a very poor translation of the Greek word "LOGOS."
LOGOS means "logic (it's literally where we get the word logic from), reason."
It would be more accurate to translate John 1:1 as God being reason itself.
There is no such thing as "the human language."
Yes, Genesis 2:19 is the first time Moses recorded a human using language. But it's not the first time someone spoke.
As I pointed out, the first time someone spoke was in Genesis 1:3. "Let there be light."
Supra.
No, Genesis 2:4 onwards is not a new era, different than what was described in Genesis 1.
Chapter 1 was the overview. Chapter 2:4 onwards gets into the details of life in the garden.
Note what verse 5 says, that it is describing a time "before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had GROWN. . . . there was no man to till the ground".
It's describing the period after day 3 and before God created man on day 6.
Creation? No.
God created the elements on day 1, Genesis 1:1.
He made everything in the universe throughout days 2-6 using what He created on day 1.
Man was made from the dust of the ground, yes.
We don't know what Adam said.
All we know, per scripture, is that Adam called her Eve, not because Moses recorded his words, but because Moses recorded that he did so.
To assert that that was what Adam said is to add to scripture, and to go beyond what the text says.
Don't add to scripture.
Don't go beyond what the text says.
Are not the archangels Michael and Gabriel "living"?
What about all the other creatures God made? Are they living, too?
If Eve is the mother of all living, does that mean she is the mother of all creatures that are "living"?
Or perhaps, just maybe, it's not saying anything other than that Eve is the mother of all human beings, being referred to as such before having bore any human beings in her womb?
Correct.
The Hebrew phrase here is "men of name," the idea being that they were famous enough to have been known by their names for their deeds.
Yet, despite being "men of name," their names are not given...
Why is that?
The Bible doesn't say either way.
Can angels reproduce? | GotQuestions.org
Can angels reproduce? Can angels mate? Can angels produce offspring?
www.gotquestions.org
The problem is this:
Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4? | GotQuestions.org
Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4? Did the fallen angels mate with human female to produce the Nephilim?
www.gotquestions.org
"produce one flesh"?
What are you talking about?
The Bible doesn't say "produce one flesh."
It says that a man and a woman "become one flesh."
If you can't even get that much correct, how in the world do you expect to get anything else correct with your theology?
I believe they were only partially human, and likely incapable of a relationship with God, both reasons being why God had to destroy them.
Freaks? Indeed.
Abominations, at the very least.
Being the spawn of demons does.
I recommend reading the following links:
I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I believe that the reason pagan religions have so many gods that act like "men" is due to such "men of renown," their deeds being so legendary that they turned into myths. For example, the Greek gods Zeus, Poseidon, the Titans, etc, the Roman gods Jupiter, Mars, Venus, etc, and plenty of other deities of pagan religions, I'd argue most if not all were stories of the "men of renown" of Genesis 6, or even of the giants that came after the flood, the stories of which were passed down through the generations of humans by Noah's sons.
Again, I point to the fact that they were men of "name," yet their names are not given.
