- Nov 21, 2008
- 52,840
- 11,667
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
'Man' in the context in which it is generally used in the context of Genesis could equally be 'mankind' (because it doesn't mean man vs woman - it includes men and women.) If we think 'mankind' we think 'everyone who lives on Planet Earth.' That is the problem. What if the Bible doesn't mean everyone on Planet Earth? Then we have used the wrong word.
That would be true - but where has it been proven that this is not "mankind"??
Hence my suggestion that we use something close to the original to not confuse it with man(kind.) Because I believe that adam and his descendants were not all of mankind.
And why do you believe such a thing??
That mankind lived long before adam came onto the scene.
No text for that either?
And I believe the Bible backs me up on this.
Not in Romans 5.
Not in Genesis 1.
Not in Genesis 2.
Not in Matthew 5.
Not in 1 Tim 2.
I'm not sure why you quoted Isa 66:23. It doesn't mention man/adam in that verse.
Because I like verses that are on the topic of the thread so in the case of this thread - showing that Sabbath is intended for "all mankind"
The translation is 'all flesh.' Strong's says that word is 'basar.'
So then "all mankind" as opposed to say... "man and birds"
Upvote
0