|
Post by Michael J Loomis on Jul 6, 2009 20:36:25 GMT -5
In our recent covenant creation conversations here as well as some over at CARM I was promoting the idea that Adam was the "First Man" yet not the first homo sapien on the planet. I guess I was in some sense trying to flesh out the idea that Adam was the, "First Covenant Adam" in contrast to Jesus having been the "Last Covenant Adam."
1 Cor. 15:45 "And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
Now...As I've been doing some research for an article that I'm writing I came across a passage that might lend some credibility to this idea.
2 Peter 2:4-5(NKJV) "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment, and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly."
This passage CLEARLY states that Noah was the "EIGHTH PERSON." Yet we know that he wasn't literally the 8th person.
So what's the deal? Cause he as far as Biblical generations go he was the tenth generation from Adam.
Any thoughts?
Mike
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jul 7, 2009 11:39:56 GMT -5
When Jude 1:15 speaks of Enoch, it is specifically that he was the 7th from Adam.
In 1 Pet 3:20, he specifically says that 8 souls were saved.
Now in 2 Pet 2:5 he is using the same construct as Jude for 8th but he is not counting from Adam like Jude was. "An" eighth would perhaps be a better way to render it than "The" eighth like Jude.
In anarthrous constructs in the Greek the article is implied for the English. And since we already have Peter's statement that 8 souls were saved, Noah being an 8th (1/8) of those souls makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Michael J Loomis on Jul 7, 2009 11:59:51 GMT -5
Good thoughts...Thanks for the input Mo. You should come to the study next Thursday night. I'm probably going to be presenting my thoughts on Jesus = Michael. 8)
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jul 7, 2009 12:27:19 GMT -5
Good thoughts...Thanks for the input Mo. You should come to the study next Thursday night. I'm probably going to be presenting my thoughts on Jesus = Michael. 8) Mike Don't forget to publish your notes and conclusions on the Jesus=Michael topic over in the thread you started about it. You never did respond to my comments there, so I'm curious to know what your conclusions are for your study. Bev
|
|
|
Post by Michael J Loomis on Jul 7, 2009 14:24:31 GMT -5
|
|