What Did Adam Call His Wife Before the Fall?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Lmao. Biblical Hebrew is not "made up."

The old testament was written in biblical Hebrew. We have proof of it from fragments dated from up to 700 years before the time of Christ.

And yes, gen 2 is narrative. But your opinion if it is incorrect.

And for someone who claims to be a literalist, you sure do rely heavily on other people's interpretations of it rather than the actual words.

Because it LITERALLY says Adam was created before plants sprung from the ground.

a reply to: rounda

I don't mean the language never existed mind you. It is that no one has spoken it for 3000 years and no one knew how it was actually pronounced come the 1500's. So a Hebrew documents were interpreted with modern Hebrew developed in the late 1800's and them used to create the whole smoke and mirrors "Original or Biblical Hebrew".

It says there was not a man when the plants were growing to till the earth so God misted the ground for a few days to keep them alive in the new atmosphere God made in Gen 1:14. Which was after the plants were made too. Both Gen 1 and 2 agree that Adam was made after the plants on day 6.

And all of Scholarship have taught this for Millenniums now.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, IN THE DAY THAT THE LORD GOD MADE THE EARTH AND THE HEAVENS.


I dont know how someone who claims to be a literalist can read that and then defer to the opinion of others.

It LITERALLY tells you what follows occurred on a day. Odd how no other part of the story mentions another day. It doesn't say "this story began on this day, the next day this happened, a couple days later this happened..."

It says, very clearly, "This story happened on this day."

And the LITERAL translation of the Hebrew:

"These are the birthings of the skies and the land with their being filled in the day YHWH of Elohiym was making the land and the sky."

It LITERALLY says, "this happened on this day."

a reply to: rounda

It is descriptive language (Speech Type) the day here encompasses the whole 6 days and the Bible supports that and so do scholars for close to 2,000 years.

Private Interpretation not accepted so you will have to use the whole AV Bible. There are too many scriptures that support Gen 1, 6 days. So just this once "in the day" does not prove your point. One rule to remember compare scripture with Scripture as exampled by the Holy Ghost in 1Cor 2:13.

Sorry you and whoever taught you these lies are wrong and if wrong on this point I wonder what else you are wrong on? But I can safely say you have a lot of false teaching and doctrine and so I can also assume you have heresies (false practices based on false teaching/doctrine) in your life as well.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire


No wonder our species is such a mess, we started from incestuous sex and fratricide.

Adam and Eve were twins, by all accounts.

a reply to: Ppl4Music

EWWWWWW, that's even ickier. And worse, if Eve was made from Adams rib, wouldn't that have been suggestive of using his DNA to maker her, making her his clone? It gets worse every time I think about it.

a reply to: rounda

Weird that those scholars' you take your interpretation from leads to other scholars claiming genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other.

It's almost as if that interpretation is incorrect.

Meanwhile, my interpretation, gained from reading the actual words, and not someone else's interpretation, leads to no contradictions.

Almost as if it's correct.

You know, because in Genesis 1, humans are created after animals.

Whereas in Genesis 2, Adam is created before animals.... And also before plants sprang forth from the earth. Which happened on day 3.

You can believe whatever you want. But stop calling yourself a literalist.

a reply to: rounda

Nah, those are your scholars not true biblical scholars.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Jeez. Now you claim biblical scholars aren't biblical scholars because they admit to contradictions in the bible.

We're done here. You obviously have no intelligent thoughts of your own to add.

a reply to: rounda

Not everyone is a True Christian and not everyone is a True Christian scholar.