100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
It's still there, in the post at the top of this page. BlurBlur.....I see no name there.....so are you going to post it or not...I already said pretty please with sugar on it instead of posting a ramble..post the name .. There is a name posted there. Instead of posting a ramble, please take the time to read, what I wrote. I took the time to research, reference, and post it, because you asked for it. That was after giving you many references which would have led you to an in-depth discussion about him, including his name, and the meaning of it. I cut and pasted many verses for you, which have his name at the beginning of them. They are at the top of this page. Pretty please..with sugar on it... read what I researched, and posted at your request. . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
blurblurb
on
Tue 10/19/10 01:06 PM
|
|
I provided the name of the man I was talking about. Will you please prove, the things you claim about Adam being the first man, are not fakery? exactly. We've shown proof that he is. Weather you wish to give the evidence credit or not is you're own personal perception but nevertheless holds no grounds for you've not shown evidence of it being other wise. You talked about The Bible, I showed verses in The Bible, the guy you claim first, has a beginning. The guy who I was talking about, and even pasted the verses about, is clearly without beginning of days. What did you prove? Evidence that God created man. Weather you want to give accountability to this is your own personal perception. Nothing is evidence or proof of anything less it is accepted as such. Genesis 1:26-27 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." How does that prove, Adam came before the man? who is......"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." Heb 7:3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
blurblurb
on
Tue 10/19/10 12:53 PM
|
|
You talked about The Bible, I showed verses in The Bible, the guy you claim first, has a beginning. The guy who I was talking about, and even pasted the verses about, is clearly without beginning of days. What did you prove? can't prove anything until you gives the name of the guy you are referring to ..can you do it or not ...if you claim that you already have then perhaps the moderators accidently deleted it...so can you give the name again? ....pretty please with sugar on it It's still there, in the post at the top of this page. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
blurblurb
on
Tue 10/19/10 11:50 AM
|
|
I provided the name of the man I was talking about. Will you please prove, the things you claim about Adam being the first man, are not fakery? exactly. We've shown proof that he is. Weather you wish to give the evidence credit or not is you're own personal perception but nevertheless holds no grounds for you've not shown evidence of it being other wise. You talked about The Bible, I showed verses in The Bible, the guy you claim first, has a beginning. The guy who I was talking about, and even pasted the verses about, is clearly without beginning of days. What did you prove? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I showed you a verse that showed you a man who is is without beginning of days, you asked for it to be from The"KJV;"Bible now you're trying to change the rules, and it has to be in Genesis too? no one is changing the rules...the thread is not about only showing a passage it's obvious that people would do that ..which is why the thread ask you to prove that the passage is either fact or fakery .... you claim that a Man existed before Adam but yet you can't even provide a name of that Man and Genesis makes no mention of such a man being before Adam....that is why the passage that you presented was that of fakery I provided the name of the man I was talking about. Will you please prove, the things you claim about Adam being the first man, are not fakery? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
blurblurb
on
Tue 10/19/10 11:32 AM
|
|
That's just your understanding of The Bible. The Bible makes it clear that Adam, had a beginning of days; it even tells you, it was the 6th day. The Bible also talks about a man who is without beginning of days, whose decent is not counted from them; but, he received tithes of Abraham, and Levi. His name is in Genesis, but, he's not descended from Adam; The Bible calls him greater than Abraham. But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. Heb.7:6-7 perhaps deception is your understanding of the bible...which is why the thread asks for proof if the passage or stories that are presented are fact or fakery......if a passage about a first man is not in Genesis "In The Beginning" ...then it's fakery the fact that you can not produce the name of that Man also proves fakery I showed you a verse that showed you a man who is is without beginning of days, you asked for it to be from The"KJV;"Bible now you're trying to change the rules, and it has to be in Genesis too? If you think a man who's beginning is clearly identified in The Bible, came before a man who The Bible say's.... is "Without beginning...." Do the math.... Which came first? Something without a beginning? or, something with a beginning? For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. Hebrews 7:1-10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
blurblurb
on
Tue 10/19/10 10:58 AM
|
|
I can prove to you... The "KJV" Bible says, there is a man who was before Adam. if you could..you would have done so already ... No, I was just waiting..... Adam was created 6 days after the beginning. This man, is without beginning of days; he's also the oldest living man in The Bible, if you thought the oldest was Methuselah, and/or the first was Adam, you were wrong.... Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Heb. 7:3 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. Heb. 7:4 oh oh...here's comes the deception again...so give the name of that Man so I can see if that name is in Genesis "In The Beginning.....or are you also going to take 6 days to create the name of the man Why would his name be in the genealogies? His decent is not counted from Adam; my last post on him agrees with that too... Heb. 7:8 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. as I said deception...and the bible made failsafes for those that try to spread false testimony ....and that is why if the guy's name is not in Genesis "In The Beginning" saying that he's the first man ....then he's not the first Man That's just your understanding of The Bible. The Bible makes it clear that Adam, had a beginning of days; it even tells you, it was the 6th day. The Bible also talks about a man who is without beginning of days, whose decent is not counted from them; but, he received tithes of Abraham, and Levi. His name is in Genesis, but, he's not descended from Adam; The Bible calls him better than Abraham. But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. Heb.7:6-7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
blurblurb
on
Tue 10/19/10 10:37 AM
|
|
I can prove to you... The "KJV" Bible says, there is a man who was before Adam. if you could..you would have done so already ... No, I was just waiting..... Adam was created 6 days after the beginning. This man, is without beginning of days; he's also the oldest living man in The Bible, if you thought the oldest was Methuselah, and/or the first was Adam, you were wrong.... Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Heb. 7:3 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. Heb. 7:4 oh oh...here's comes the deception again...so give the name of that Man so I can see if that name is in Genesis "In The Beginning.....or are you also going to take 6 days to create the name of the man Why would his name be in the genealogies? His decent is not counted from Adam; my last post on him agrees with that too... Heb. 7:8 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
blurblurb
on
Tue 10/19/10 10:25 AM
|
|
I can prove to you... The "KJV" Bible says, there is a man who was before Adam. if you could..you would have done so already ... No, I was just waiting..... Adam was created 6 days after the beginning. This man, is without beginning of days; he's also the oldest living man in The Bible, if you thought the oldest was Methuselah, and/or the first was Adam, you were wrong.... Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Heb. 7:3 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. Heb. 7:4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
blurblurb
on
Tue 10/19/10 10:10 AM
|
|
I'm just referring to a man. ok then according to the bible (kjv) that man is Adam ...remember you said that you wasn't going to disagree with the bible since it's all there No, that's not what The Bible say's. That's what your understanding of The Bible says. I can prove to you... The "KJV" Bible says, there was a man who was before Adam. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haven't you heard of the missing link ...mutation could explain that It's still missing, isn't it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
blurblurb
on
Tue 10/19/10 10:00 AM
|
|
I don't see the comparison...? A swarm of grass hoppers can change colors, mutate into locusts and swarm; we can see that happen. If whole herds of apes suddenly turned onto humans; shouldn't that still happen, shouldn't we be able to see it? haven't you heard of the missing link ...mutation could explain that But... I'm going to disagree with you, on The Bible, which is all here, we don't need to debate on what ifs? and apes. Adam is not the first man in The Bible. are you referring to humans or aliens? I'm just referring to a man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
blurblurb
on
Tue 10/19/10 09:53 AM
|
|
oops double post
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
blurblurb
on
Tue 10/19/10 09:54 AM
|
|
Where did I try to claim, there was no man before Adam? posted by blurblur According to both science, and The Bible.... one human had flesh before any other humans... blurblur...you tried to be deceptive by presenting a concept that contradicted itself... a human can not have flesh before any other humans since the person in question is human I have no intention of being deceptive. Please look at what I've written, I'm serious; and, I'm not trying to deceive you in any way. I'm not going real fast; but, I have points I'm trying to make that are not deceptive. According to science, and The Bible, there was a first man. At the time of the first human, there was only one human who could possibly have flesh, there were mo other humans, except the one.... for a certain amount of time. Can we agree on that? not necessarily in science because you're leaving out the possibility of a species instantly mutating into flesh ,an example of this possiblitiy is how the exoskeleton of the green grasshoppers instantly turn brown and turn them into a species of locusts that swarm... and not in the bible because according to the bible adam was the first human with flesh I don't see the comparison...? A swarm of grass hoppers can change colors, mutate into locusts and swarm; we can see that happen. If whole herds of apes suddenly turned onto humans; shouldn't that still happen, shouldn't we be able to see it? But... I'm going to disagree with you, on The Bible, which is all here, we don't need to debate on what ifs? and apes. Adam is the first man mentioned in The Bible; but, there is another man who was before Adam, named in The Bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
blurblurb
on
Tue 10/19/10 09:32 AM
|
|
Where did I try to claim, there was no man before Adam? posted by blurblur According to both science, and The Bible.... one human had flesh before any other humans... blurblur...you tried to be deceptive by presenting a concept that contradicted itself... a human can not have flesh before any other humans since the person in question is human I have no intention of being deceptive. Please look at what I've written, I'm serious; and, I'm not trying to deceive you in any way. I'm not going real fast; but, I have points I'm trying to make that are not deceptive. According to science, and The Bible, there was a first man. At the time of the first human, there was only one human who could possibly have flesh, there were no other humans in existence, except the one.... for a certain amount of time. Can we agree on that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, God didn't give Adam flesh before any other human. That's not what The Bible says. perhaps you should do a little research before you post Genesis 2:23...."At last!" Adam exclaimed. "She is part of my own flesh and bone! She will be called `woman,' because she was taken out of a man." Okay, since you're the one who is into research.... are you trying to claim there was no man before Adam? that is what you have been trying to claim Where did I try to claim, there was no man before Adam? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, God didn't give Adam flesh before any other human. That's not what The Bible says. perhaps you should do a little research before you post Genesis 2:23...."At last!" Adam exclaimed. "She is part of my own flesh and bone! She will be called `woman,' because she was taken out of a man." Okay, since you're the one who is into research.... are you trying to claim there was no man before Adam? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would respond but knowing you are going to argue and deny every word I say I would rather not waste my time. Exactly no matter what evidence or proof we may provide, they don't and won't accept it as true. Things are only true if you accept it as such. Does that mean if you change your mind tomorrow... God will no longer exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing. ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’ Leviticus 17:11 Job 36:27-29 For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist, Which the clouds drop down And pour abundantly on man. Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds, The thunder from His canopy? the bible was written by men who could observe and make accurate and factual claims just as they do now and who could also tell 'fables' to teach a moral just as they do now,,, the bible is historical account of men and their relationship to God An interesting thing about The Bible, is it talks about a lot of things scientists haven't known that long..... The newspapers carried headlines saying The Bible had been proven wrong! They said that because somebody made a telescope, and claimed they were able to count 1,046 stars; so the great scientists of the day taught... Science had proven The Bible wrong! they numbered the stars! LOL Genesis 15:4-6 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you have a question about the jewish religion i'm sure there is a rabbi who can answer that for you. If the highest priesthood in The Bible, was held by a Gentile who blessed Abraham; how does that make it the Jewish religion? if you have a question about the jewish religion i'm sure there is a rabbi who can answer that for you. likewise there are professional people in each of the fields you all are disputing over. why not ask a professional and get a real answer. sorry, the point i was trying to make is in the sentence after the one you quoted. there are professional people trained in every religion, those are the people to get real answers from, not just everyday laymen. Since you're not claiming to be an authority on any of those things.... Does that mean you have given the opinion of, just an everyday layman? |
|
|
|
|
Previous
