Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?

In Genesis 1:28 my Hendrickson Interlinear Hebrew-Aramaic to English Interliner applies the phrase, "be frutful, multiply and fill," as do a number of translations, referring to God's instruction for Adam to do.Some other translations, including the KJV use the term "replenish rather than "multiply."Why would a planet void, cold and dark, having no atmosphere or sun
need to be replenished (abe: with life)?Interlinears render the nearest English equivalent to the manuscript text. Translators are not generally so exact, taking the liberty to make the text more readable, sometimes applying their own interpretation.If you begin with Genesis 1:1 and read all of the way down to verse 28, it's appears obvious from context that the interliner as well as the majority of translations are correct using "be fruitful, multiply and fill.What do you think?The Bible Study, perhaps. Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted in contextEdited by Buzsaw, : Change wording gramatically

---

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

Thread copied here from the Biblically, Was Adam The First Man? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Genesis 1 is part of a different creation story. Adam isn't even mentioned.For Genesis 2-4, it is quite clear from the writing style that it is of the genre of fables. My read is that it is only intended to explain the origin of the Jewish peoples. There appear to have been other people around, such as in the land of Nod where Cain apparently found a wife. And in that case, clearly Adam was not the first homo sapiens, but is intended to symbolize the first in the particular line of ancestry that became the Jewish people.Oh, and as somebody raised in Australia, I'll point out that aborigines were living in Australia long before the time of Adam.Arguments over the word "replenish" seem silly.Incidently, I think you might have missed the point being made by Jeff Davis in Message 11 of his introduction thread. He wasn't making a point about Adam. Rather, he was making a point about what a strict literalism would imply.

Hi Buz,Do you want to discuss Hebrew or do you want to discuss the first man on earth?The meaning of Hebrew words is determined by prefixes, suffixes, construct, and context, along with several other things.Now if you want to discuss the first man on earth that would be the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7.If you want to discuss the first man created in the image/likeness of God that would be the mankind created male and female in Genesis 1:27.If you want to discuss why the mankind created in Genesis is called adam, it is because the Hebrew word used for mankind is transliterated adam.But the Hebrew word אדם means mankind or man. Adam is not a meaning of the word.Let me know which you would like to discuss.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."

Replenish comes from the French, replenir itself from the latin plenus - which means 'full'. So four hundred years ago - it probably didn't mean 'to fill up again'. Which is presumably why your more modern translations don't use that word.abe: the prefix 're' can mean 'again or backwards' as in retard, revolve, reallign but in old French it can be used as an intensive prefix (makes the following word have the same meaning but moreso). As in mankind was instructed not to just fill the world, but really fill the world.We see this prefix use in redolent (very smelly)
research (to search in depth)
resplendant (very brilliant)
religion (very binding (ligio - as in ligaments))
regret (gret meaning 'to weep')etcEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Modulus is correct on this.The Oxford English Dictionary states that the word was used to mean "fill" from the 13th to 17th centuries. It never meant to "re-fill" during this time period. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of the word replenish to mean to fill again occurred in 1612, one year after the King James Version was published.The Hebrew word translated here means "to fill".

Thanks, Modulous and Flyer. I was wondering why some translators used that word, replenish. This serves to support the position that for moderns, fill is the more appropriate translation.So now, the debate will need to focus on whether Adam was the 1st man created on the sixth day.Perhaps I misunderstood our new member, Jeff Davis. I took it that he thinks the first man of Genesis one was not the first man. Perhaps Jeff will weigh in here on what his position actually is.I will be out of town most of the day so may not find time to respond much today.

---

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

You can't really conflate the two stories since they were written by different people of different cultures and different eras.Neither story served primarily as a Creation myth, though Genesis 1 does come closer.The story that begins in Genesis 2:4:b is by far the older one and it's main purpose is to found a dynasty, a peoples, and secondarily as a "Just So Story" to explain why men are over women, why we fear snakes, why we farm and no longer just gather, why childbirth seems more difficult and painful for women then it does for the other animals and why we form moral social societies as opposed to amoral ones.Nothing in this story refers to anything found in Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:4a.

---

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

According to Gen 1 Man and Woman (unnamed) were created last. According Gen 2, Man (named Adam) was created first. So wahtever the case, Adam was not created on the sixth day. Either a man and a woman were created on the sixth day, after the animlas, and we don't know their names, or Adam was created first and the animals after.

I've never heard of a french word replenir. Is it an old french word ? You sure you got the right word here ?

Etymology of the French word replenir

I did google it though. Didn't seem to turn up anything in particular.Thanks

Huntard, my understanding is that the oldest manuscripts do not name Adam until Genesis 3:21. The term the man, is used exclusively in most translations in both chapters one and two. The KJ and Douay are the only major ones which name Adam in Genesis 2:20, the first mention of him in the KJ version. This is the problem when translators take it upon themselves to interpret what they translate. They remind me of the activist judges today who take it upon themselves to establish law to suit themselves rather than to apply what is written.A careful and logical reading of chapters one and two make it obvious that chapter one is a concise record of the chronological order in which God worked on the planet to prepare it for life and to create, by design, life. Chapter two, not being chronological is the detail chapter, explaining the creation of life and how the woman came to be from a part of Adam.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.This is how the large majority of scholars have always read and understood these origin chapters.Not only that, but throughout the NT Jesus and his apostles depict Adam as the first man. Edited by Buzsaw, : Update message title

---

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

No idea. Got a source on that? WHat are the "major" ones Buz? I looked it up and found these version who mention adam in gen 2:NIV
NASB
Amplified Bible
ESV
NKJV
NCV
21st century KJ
DT
NIRV
NIVUK
TNIVAnd that's only the English ones. Are you saying that all these are not "major" ones?

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.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.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. Edited by Just being real, : added usual responses to where Cain's wife came from