Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?

I am wondering how you are reaching this conclusion about how the Jewish people appreciated the story. It is very common to make such allusions to fictional characters. People today often make similar allusions to sitcom characters. No, I don't think that is at all clear. I see that you managed to avoid commenting on this:

quote:

---

If you read chapters one, two, and three in one sitting, you read of "the man" all through chapter one and most of two in all translations and not until chapter 3 in the interlinears. It should be obvious that one man is featured in all three chapters as the first man.

---

The story talking about one man, doesn't mean he was the first man created on planet Earth. The stories don't give us that information. They are culture specific stories, not planetary. The cultural perspective is supported by the fact that Cain takes a wife. I idea that Cain married one of his sisters is not supported by the stories and goes against God's own laws that God presents later.

quote:

---

Not only that, but throughout the NT Jesus and his apostles depict Adam as the first man.

---

I only noticed Paul speaking of Adam as the first man, of course, Paul also said Jesus is the second man. Given Paul's creativeness, it is hard to know if he means that Adam was the very first man created on the planet or had a more theological point in mind.Jesus did not speak of Adam as the first man or his disciples. If I have missed something, please provide the verses to support your position.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

quote:

---

I think this is an interesting idea, but I also think it too simplistically attempts to address the difficulties without first weighing out the logical problems that follow. That being that the Jewish people all seemed to read it as saying that Adam was indeed the very first homo sapien on earth. This understanding is seen even in Jesus argument regarding marriage where he stated that "from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female." (Mark 10:6) Clearly the intended audience of the Genesis creation account all took it to mean the very beginning of creation and not just the beginning of the Jewish nation. Also the entire Jewish sabbath laws were formed around the "rest" of God on the seventh day, and so clearly they seemed to take it to be a narrative account, and not a fable.

---

Referencing a fictional character to make a very real point, doesn't make the fictional character real or mean the speaker feels the character is real. Besides, the argument made by Jesus concerning marriage doesn't really make sense. (With a Valid Divorce, Remarriage is Not Adultery)Actually it is more likely that Genesis 1 was written to fit the Jewish Sabbath laws. The creation stories are foundational myths. They are stories that are written to explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. Genesis 1 was probably written during the reign of Hezekiah (c. 715 and 686 BCE) who made substantial religious reforms.As far as what the audience understood, remember there were various religions among the Semitic people. So not so much the creation of the Jewish Nation, which is later through Abraham, but the creation of the Semitic people. That's why the creation story is not crucial to the Jewish religion. Abraham is the beginning of the Jewish Nation.

quote:

---

Another approach to the apparent difficulties between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 could more easily be explained by understanding that the 1 is intended to be just a basic overview of "everything" that happened during creation, while the second is intended to be more of a step back and a closer examination of something that occurred during that first week.

---

The stories don't tell us that. Genesis 2 is the older story. When we conflate the stories, we are then creating our own creation story. Each author had a point to the story. Don't take that away.

quote:

---

Also the difficulties of where the other people such as Cain's wife etc... came from, is usually overcome by the fact that his father is stated to have lived over 900 years and had many sons and daughters. It is possible that with no genetic impurities existing, that reproduction with a sibling would not have been a problem.

---

Another assumption not supported by the stories. IMO, tribes had more of a tunnel vision and not a planetary vision. The stories were made for the tribe, not the planet and we alter them to fit our religious needs today.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

Not really. The following quote is from the prefaece to "The Antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus where he was writing on what Moses wrote in the Jewish scriptures.

quote:

---

...for thereby it will appear to them that there is nothing therein disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love to mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator (Moses) speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explanation plainly and expressly. However, those that have a mind to know the reason of everything, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I shall waive the explication of; but if Gods afford me time for it.

---

Josephus then writes "THe Antiquities of the Jews" starting with the creation stories based on the Jewish scriptures and as found in what we now call the Old Testament. It is very clear that Josephus who is our primary Jewish historian for that era saw the creation story as being allegorical.

I wanted to first respond to this comment you made in response to my quotes of Jesus, because it speaks to a problem that I am noticing several people seem to have on these threads. And that is their failure to leave out personal beliefs when "roll playing." For example if the question was posed, "According to Willie Wonka where do Oompa Loompas come from." Well the answer is obvious... They come from Loompaland, which is a region of Loompa, a small isolated island in the Pacific Ocean. The point of course is that even if you neither believe in Oompa Loompas, nor Loompaland, you can divorce yourself from your own personal beliefs and answer the question by roll playing in the mindset of Willie Wonka (who is also a fictitious character).The question posed in this thread was, "Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?" Therefore we are leaving our personal beliefs aside and responding only with reality according to the Bible. Rather you personally believe that Jesus was merely a sitcom character or a real person is not relevant to the question posed. According to the Bible he was a real person who said that God created the man and the woman at the beginning of creation. You are more than welcome to express your belief or disbelief in the Bible, but what you can not do is deny what the Bible clearly teaches. I derive this from several Old and New Testament Bible texts. For example in the Psalms, David expressed his understanding of Genesis one as God speaking the word and the stars were created. Psalm 33:6. Psalm 148:4-5. This demonstrates that he did not see the Genesis 1 account as merely a fable. Also we must not forget that the same person who wrote Genesis also wrote Exodus. In Exodus 20:8-11 he describes the sabbath in context with a literal 7 day week and clearly compares it to the creation week. This shows us that he did not intend for it to be taken as a fable but rather to be taken as 7 literal days. Next we have to consider the fact that both Jews and Christians alike believe that because of Adam's sin in the garden, sin came upon all of humanity. 1 Corinthians 15:22. This view makes no sense if you believe the creation of Adam was merely the creation of the Jewish race. How would his sins have effected other living humans? In the Old Testament genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1:1-7 Adam is listed as the very first man, and this theme is carried on into the New Testament genealogy of Luke 3 where all the men are assigned human fathers with the exception of the first man Adam who is called a direct descendant of God. Also I would direct your attention to 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 where the issue is settled "Biblically" and we are clearly told that Adam was in fact the first living being. I failed to comment on this because this thread is not about rather or not the Bible is scientifically accurate. It is instead about if Adam was BIBLICALLY the first man.And I think I have demonstrated that according to Willie, Oompas do in fact come from Loompaland.

Fair enough.The reality of the Bible, is that the Adam and Eve story reads as something of the genre of fables. Therefore, putting our own beliefs aside, we should read it as a fable. Hence we cannot conclude that Adam was the first man.If you want to go by your "Willie Wonka" analogy, then you would have to be talking of "reality according to the Adam and Eve story" rather than of "reality according to the Bible." Wow! You must have completely missed the point. I was not in any way suggesting that "Jesus was merely a sitcom character."There are actual logic books that contain quotes from Sherlock Holmes. They never mention that Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character. And these are technical logic books that place an emphasis on truth.The point is that it is entirely normal for people, in their writing and speaking, to allude to fictional characters without any mention that they are fictional. And thus there is no basis for concluding that the referenced characters are not fictional. That Jesus alluded to Adam is zero evidence that Jesus believed Adam to have been real. If Jesus believed Adam to be a well understood, but fictional cultural icon, he would have alluded to him in just the same way.I see that you used the same kind of bogus reasoning in the following paragraph. I won't go through that line by line.

I did seem to misunderstand your point. Please forgive me.However I would disagree that Adam would have merely been a cultural icon that Jesus was referring to, without having something that demonstrates this in writing somewhere else in the scriptures at least once or twice. As for the other texts being ignored, that's your prerogative, but I am left feeling kind of cheated because I had actually saved the more stronger points to the end.

I'm not sure why you would expect that in the scriptures. What we usually refer to as "the scriptures" are texts that have been selected to present a particular point of view favored by the selection committee. In Message 19, GDR quoted some text from Josephus, which suggests that the Adam and Eve story was seen as allegorical. I have heard from a number of Jewish people, raised in the Jewish traditions, that most see the story as allegorical.I'm not a historian. I don't claim expert knowledge of what was the dominant view at that time. To be clear, I am not asserting that Jesus saw Adam and Eve as mere cultural icons. Rather, I am asserting that from what he said we cannot conclude that he did not see them that way. The scriptural evidence is far too scanty to reach any definite conclusion.

quote:

---

The question posed in this thread was, "Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?" Therefore we are leaving our personal beliefs aside and responding only with reality according to the Bible.

---

That would mean we would have to understand what the Bible authors were trying to "teach" their audience.

quote:

---

This demonstrates that he did not see the Genesis 1 account as merely a fable.

---

Psalms are songs, which are poems. The songwriter is praising God. The comments in the song don't really tell us what the author believed concerning Genesis 1. For the last century, clergy have known that the authors of the 4 gospels are unknown, but many still teach that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wrote the gospels. What one understands and what one writes in a poem/song (or teaches) aren't necessarily the same.

quote:

---

Also I would direct your attention to 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 where the issue is settled "Biblically" and we are clearly told that Adam was in fact the first living being.

---

Is that what Paul actually meant? Notice that Jesus is the second man. Was Jesus really the second man created? His audience would know that Jesus wasn't actually the second man created. So Paul is making a spiritual point. The Genesis stories don't tell us that Adam the actual first human created.

The Alexandrian manuscript texts, from which the 1901 ASV was translated in the most literal way does not name Adam until Genesis 3:12 . The KJV and I believe, the Douay (Catholic) were actually translated from later manuscripts; the KJV taken from what is known as the "Textus Receptus or Received Text."The rule of thumb is that the oldest texts are the most literal.I would say that most on your list are not major translations, but regardless, it is the early manuscripts from which translations are taken which are most significant.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

There are other factors which have not been aired. First, from the gitgo throughout this account, one man is implicated; not men or more than one. "The man," is the term used throughout this account.Secondly, regardess of the meaning of Adam and man, both are alluded to as one and the same in context, even after Adam was named. The same goes with the woman. Eve was also addressed as "the woman." The two are obviously the first, male and female.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Yes, in the story Adam is the only man mentioned. Yes, in the story found in Genesis 2&3 Adam and Eve are the characters.But that says nothing about whether or not they were meant to be the actual first man or woman.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi PD, Whether you like it or not the text does tell us some things, lets examine the text. This verse tells us there was no plant of the field in the earth.This verse tells us there was no herb of the field before it grew.This verse tells us it had not rained on the earth.This verse tells us there was no man to till the ground.No water equals no way to grow plants or herb bearing plants and trees. Which would equal no food for a man to eat. This man that was formed from the dust of the ground and became a living being was the first life form on earth. Before plants, animals or fowls and woman.God then planted a garden and caused every tree that was good for food to grow out of the ground.God then provided an irrigation system.Then animals.Then a woman made from the rib of the man.So this man was not only the first man on earth he was the first living life form on earth.It makes no difference whether the Bible is the truth, a fable, a myth, the musings of some idiot, old wives tales, great fireside stories, or any other catagory you could put it in.The book I have that says Holy Bible on the cover has these things recorded in it.You can say anything your mind desires to say about it.But you can not change the fact that it is recorded in the text quoted that the man formed from the dust of the earth became a living being before any other life form according to the narated story in Genesis 2:4-25.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Buz, Which account you talking about?The account given about the mankind created male and female in the image/likeness of God is about modern man that was created some 6000 years ago. This was not the first man.The account given of the man formed from the dust of the ground with the breath of life breathed into his nostrils causing that form to become a living being was the first man who was brought into being in the same light period (DAY) God created the Heaven and the Earth. Genesis 2:4.There is no way to put a date on this man begining to exist as the Bible places it in the beginning.I know you disagree with me but you have never tried to show me where the text is other than what I have presented. The text is very plain.Now to this word Adam.Adam is an English word and did not exist until the English language existed.Adam is not a Hebrew word. Adam is the transliteration of אדמ with an added a.The literal transliteration would be A (Alef} D (Dalet) M (Mem) which would be written Adm. You are correct concerning the woman called Eve being the first woman who was made from the rib of her mate who was the first man. This man was formed from the dust of the ground and became a living being when God breathed the breath of life into him. This man was not created in the image/likeness of God but became as God knowing good and evil when he disobeyed God.How could he become as God if he was already in the image/likeness of God?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

Secondly, regardess of the meaning of Adam and man, both are alluded to as one and the same in context, even after Adam was named. The same goes with the woman. Eve was also addressed as "the woman." The two are obviously the first, male and female.

---

Not really that obvious.Cain was afraid anyone who found him would kill him.
Cain took a wife.
Cain built a city and named it Enoch.ABE: Genesis 1:27 also shows that the author didn't view God as creating just one man and one woman. This later author viewed God as creating mankind with no specific number given. God made them male and female.Edited by purpledawn, : ABE