# Adam not first human.



## hobbs27 (Jul 7, 2015)

I know it's long, around 30 minutes. I would appreciate you watching and responding to this video of a like minded brother {sweating it out in a propane truck} as he explains covenant creation and why Adam was not the first physically created man in bible but the first covenant man. 

 This argument keeps us holding true to the bible, science , and history. IMO


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 8, 2015)

hobbs,

Why did you post this here?  This is a subject for Christian discussion.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 8, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> hobbs,
> 
> Why did you post this here?  This is a subject for Christian discussion.



It's apologetic quality. And it goes along with the discussion happening in another thread here, about literal vs figuritive interpretation.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 8, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> It's apologetic quality. And it goes along with the discussion happening in another thread here, about literal vs figuritive interpretation.



Gotcha.  I'll watch it later and then we'll talk.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 2, 2015)

I am always amazed at the effort people exert trying to rationalize "scripture".   Begs the question of why anyone should care.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 13, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> I am always amazed at the effort people exert trying to rationalize "scripture".   Begs the question of why anyone should care.



 The desire to know comes from above.


----------



## RNC (Sep 13, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> I am always amazed at the effort people exert trying to rationalize "scripture".   Begs the question of why anyone should care.




Pretty much ...

Since all that really matters is my sig line ...


Either you are born again by the blood of the Lamb (Jesus of Nazareth) ,or you're not ...


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Sep 13, 2015)

yippee.  another person trying to explain away what scripture plainly says, so they can line up with the thought processes of a carnal world trying to explain away God.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 13, 2015)

NE GA Pappy said:


> yippee.  another person trying to explain away what scripture plainly says, so they can line up with the thought processes of a carnal world trying to explain away God.



Ever so often throughout history the church has had to adjust its interpretation to what science has made obvious. This isn't to take away from God, it's to correct mans understanding.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Ever so often throughout history the church has had to adjust its interpretation to what science has made obvious. This isn't to take away from God, it's to correct mans understanding.



....by men.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 13, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> ....by men.



Inspired by the Holy Spirit. I've had too many Hallelujah moments while digging in Gods word to think anything else.
 I understand why the skeptic would think this, but my personal experiences will not allow me to be skeptical about the devine word of God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 13, 2015)

I think it's possible that Adam wasn't the first man. Now do we assume the creation story isn't literal? I myself believe in evolution. I'm not sure when the ape became man enough to develop a soul. Now if spirits pre-existed then God could have placed them in men under covenant.

I haven't watched the video yet, do men before Adam go to Heaven?
If one has to be under covenant then what about all the Gentiles? 
Did the Gentiles come under covenant  with the New Covenant? 
I thought all the Gentiles were doomed before the mystery of the grafting which allowed salvation unto the Gentiles.
Other than the lineage of Adam, there were many people who weren't under covenant.  Were they doomed or saved?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Inspired by the Holy Spirit. I've had too many Hallelujah moments while digging in Gods word to think anything else.
> I understand why the skeptic would think this, but my personal experiences will not allow me to be skeptical about the devine word of God.



Have you tried digging in anyone else's Word?  Have you ever had a Hallelujah moment from a horoscope or fortune cookie?  Serious question.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Inspired by the Holy Spirit. I've had too many Hallelujah moments while digging in Gods word to think anything else.
> I understand why the skeptic would think this, but my personal experiences will not allow me to be skeptical about the devine word of God.




Would you care to share?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 14, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Would you care to share?



This woman shared.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 14, 2015)

660griz said:


> This woman shared.


_
Laney's court-appointed attorney, Buck Files, said he felt a sense of relief.

"We have believed as strongly as we could believe that our client was insane at the time of the events," Files said.

Files said in court that Laney believed God had told her the world was going to end and "she had to get her house in order," which included killing her children.

"The dilemma she faced is a terrible one for a mother," Files told the jury. "Does she follow what she believes to be God's will, or does she turn her back on God?"_

How many times do you hear "Believing in God doesn't do any harm."  Maybe she thought that right before she bashed her son's head in with a rock, she would look up to see a ram tied to a tree to take his place.

So sick....


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 14, 2015)

660griz said:


> This woman shared.



So the question is, is everyone that hears the voice of God insane?  I say yes......


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> It's apologetic quality. And it goes along with the discussion happening in another thread here, about literal vs figuritive interpretation.



I struggled to find anything apologetic about his delivery. Tough one to watch, maybe it's the regional dialect. But his point was lost in his delivery.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 14, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I struggled to find anything apologetic about his delivery. Tough one to watch, maybe it's the regional dialect. But his point was lost in his delivery.



I can understand that, he's a New Yorker, but a really great guy with a love for the Lord and the word of God.
 I've watched several of his videos, chatted with him online , and over the phone. I already know where he stands and why, so its easier for me.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 17, 2015)

660griz said:


> This woman shared.



Ad hominem argument.  One of the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris, wore a T shirt on the day of the massacre.  It read "Natural Selection".  If you're making an implication, then it cuts both ways.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 17, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ad hominem argument.  One of the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris, wore a T shirt on the day of the massacre.  It read "Natural Selection".  If you're making an implication, then it cuts both ways.



Except that neither he nor you (apparently) understand what natural selection is.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 17, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Except that neither he nor you (apparently) understand what natural selection is.



Totally off subject, but hey, if you can't rationally defend the point, change the subject.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 17, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Totally off subject, but hey, if you can't rationally defend the point, change the subject.





SemperFiDawg said:


> Ad hominem argument.  One of the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris, wore a T shirt on the day of the massacre.  It read "Natural Selection".  If you're making an implication, then it cuts both ways.



"Hey pot.  I'm kettle."

You don't even see it.  Sad.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 17, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> "Hey pot.  I'm kettle."
> 
> You don't even see it.  Sad.



grizzes post was an ad hominem argument.  (Look it up.  You'll see.). My reply was a DIRECT reply to HIS post, therefore NOT off subject.  I understand that to be an atheist is to deny the Truth, but do you really have to take it to the point of absurdity?  I mean does there not reach a point where your conscious or sense of shame says "That's enough!  I can't pretend to be this unreasonable anymore?"


----------



## bullethead (Sep 17, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> grizzes post was an ad hominem argument.  (Look it up.  You'll see.). My reply was a DIRECT reply to HIS post, therefore NOT off subject.  I understand that to be an atheist is to deny the Truth, but do you really have to take it to the point of absurdity?  I mean does there not reach a point where your conscious or sense of shame says "That's enough!  I can't pretend to be this unreasonable anymore?"


YES! We have! You finally have gotten it!!! Now you know why we do not believe in the God of the bible!
Glad to see you are back and it has only taken you a few months to come up with a new "word of the day" that you can interject in each thread now.
We converse "add fact".


----------



## 660griz (Sep 18, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ad hominem argument.  One of the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris, wore a T shirt on the day of the massacre.  It read "Natural Selection".  If you're making an implication, then it cuts both ways.



Implication? I think it was direct evidence. 
Did Eric Harris leave a note that said Charles Darwin told him to kill?
If not, your defense fails...miserably.
What if he wore a Yamaha shirt?
Believe it or not, some folks are religious and still believe in natural selection.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 13, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Ever so often throughout history the church has had to adjust its interpretation to what science has made obvious. This isn't to take away from God, it's to correct mans understanding.



You'd think an omnipotent being would be able to convey a message right out of the gate in a way that didn't cause misunderstandings. Maybe, and I know this is really far fetched, but maybe the bible never was the product of an infallible deity. Maybe it is the product of fallible men who were simply wrong and the problem isn't with people's understanding of it but what it actually says.


----------

