Man was in Pangaea

[BeyondET]

On 6/12/2024 at 12:58 AM, dad2 said:

On the issue of scholars thinking the word Adam is associated with the colour red, here are a few links

 

"Adam (אדם) literally means "red", and there is an etymological connection between adam and adamah, adamah designating "red clay" or "red ground" in a non-theological context.^[7] In traditional Jewish theology, a strong etymological connection between the two words is often assumed. Maimonides believed the word adam to be derived from the word adamah, analogous to the way in which mankind was created from the ground.^[8] In contemporary biblical scholarship there is a general consensus that the words have an etymological relationship, but the exact nature of it is disputed"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamah

"

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with the Greek and Hebrew: 119. âdam to show blood (in the face) i.e. flush or turn away—be dyed, made) red (ruddy). 120. âdâm ruddy, i.e. a human being 127. àdâmâh ground: soil (from its gen. Redness), country, earth, ground.

ADAM, the name of the man created in the image of God appears to be derived from the Hebrew ddam which means “he or it was red or rudy”, like Edom. It apparently refers to the ground from which he was formed, which in the Hebrew is Adamah which is derived from (119) which means red"

https://biblesearch.com/what-does-adam-mean/

 

As mentioned, the word is associated by scholars with red.Also, as mentioned, it doesn't matter what type of dirt God used. I hazarded a guess as I stated clearly about what sort of dirt it could have been. You seem to want to argue about nothing and accuse falsely as well as divert from the topic and meaningful issues.

The issue was with the link to gotquestions.com you posted that wasn't about most scholars statements. But you did see your error and now your back peddling I get it, it's cool.

[dad2]

6 hours ago, BeyondET said:

The issue was with the link to gotquestions.com you posted that wasn't about most scholars statements. But you did see your error and now your back peddling I get it, it's cool.

As long as we realize that Adam is associated in meaning with the colour red, I guess it doesn't matter what scholars vote to accept it or not. It also doesn't matter what sort of dust of the ground God used to form the first man. It does matter that we believe that God did for  Adam one day and make him come alive. Then He took a bone from him and made the first woman. That does not fit with evo theory.

In fact it doesn't fit with any old ages either! How many millions of years do you think man could have lived alone with no woman in the world? That makes no sense.

Edited June 14, 2024 by dad2

[BeyondET]

4 hours ago, dad2 said:

As long as we realize that Adam is associated in meaning with the colour red, I guess it doesn't matter what scholars vote to accept it or not. It also doesn't matter what sort of dust of the ground God used to form the first man. It does matter that we believe that God did for  Adam one day and make him come alive. Then He took a bone from him and made the first woman. That does not fit with evo theory.

In fact it doesn't fit with any old ages either! How many millions of years do you think man could have lived alone with no woman in the world? That makes no sense.

 A rib wasn't it either but from the os baculum.

https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/was-eve-made-from-adams-rib-or-his-baculum/

[dad2]

3 hours ago, BeyondET said:

 A rib wasn't it either but from the os baculum.

https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/was-eve-made-from-adams-rib-or-his-baculum/

Again, it doesn't matter what bone or rib was used. The point is God took something from the man and made woman. Those who embrace evolution do not believe that.

By the way, in Gen 2:23 Adam said bone of my bones

Your guess could not be correct since that is singular.

Brown-Driver-Briggs'

1) bone, essence, substance

1a) bone

1a1) body, limbs, members, external body

1b) bone (of animal)

1c) substance, self

Edited June 14, 2024 by dad2

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, BeyondET said:

 A rib wasn't it either but from the os baculum.

[RV_Wizard]

On 6/14/2024 at 4:14 PM, BeyondET said:

 A rib wasn't it either but from the os baculum.

https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/was-eve-made-from-adams-rib-or-his-baculum/

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!  Removing a rib form a man does NOT create children with one less rib any more than removing a leg would make one legged children.  This argument is TOO STUPID  to be believed.

Eve was created from Adam's rib, NOT his penis.

Have you people run out of things to lie about?  Seriously!!

 

[The Barbarian]

22 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!  Removing a rib form a man does NOT create children with one less rib any more than removing a leg would make one legged children.  This argument is TOO STUPID  to be believed.

One might think so.   But...
People who believe men have fewer ribs than women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXOqfxOKhJg

and...

She spoke: Males have one fewer pair of ribs than females.

I was totally unprepared for her answer. My mandible dropped. After a moment’s reflection, I realized she must be referring to the biblical story in which God creates Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. My student was someone who believed in the literal truth of the Bible, and it was her religious belief, not her previous knowledge of human anatomy, that made her so sure of her answer. This was going to be a challenge.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/darwins-rib

Some creationists are a lot more creationist than other creationists.

I became aware of this when my oldest daughter came home telling me that one of her classmates believed that story.    It took her a lot of convincing to get him to realize it was false.   "Don't you believe the Bible?" he asked at one point.

 

Edited June 18, 2024 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

23 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!  Removing a rib form a man does NOT create children with one less rib any more than removing a leg would make one legged children.  This argument is TOO STUPID  to be believed.

Eve was created from Adam's rib, NOT his penis.

Have you people run out of things to lie about?  Seriously!!

 

Sometimes, people post things just to upset others or derail the conversation. Ignoring those posts can help keep the discussion productive.

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

People who believe men have fewer ribs than women.

Some people believe in evolution.  The Bible doesn't teach either.

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Sometimes, people post things just to upset others or derail the conversation. Ignoring those posts can help keep the discussion productive.

Sometimes people just can't post anything truthful.