Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 8 of 109 (580476)
09-09-2010 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Buzsaw
09-09-2010 8:35 AM


Re: Replenish
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 09-09-2010 8:35 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 109 (580831)
09-11-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
09-11-2010 3:48 PM


Re: Adam, The Man
Buz writes:
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.
Yes, in the story Adam is the only man mentioned.
Buz writes:
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.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 09-11-2010 3:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 33 of 109 (581072)
09-13-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
09-13-2010 12:05 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
No, it means that the story tellers did not talk about fish or seas.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 09-13-2010 12:05 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 109 (581775)
09-17-2010 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by hERICtic
09-17-2010 6:40 AM


Re: Erets and Adamah
You need to understand that there is no single purpose to the stories of the Bible. Different authors at different times wrote different stories meant to communicate different things to the people of the authors times.
The old Genesis 2&3 fables show a primitive view of life and were meant as Just So Stories to explain why childbirth seemed more painful for women then the other animals, why women would be subject to the man, why we fear snakes, wear clothes, have to farm instead of just hunting and foraging like the other animals, why we create a moral based society instead of the general amorality found in the animal kingdom.
It was meant to show why man was over the animals and plants.
It is NOT about sin.
BUT...it was a very, very old folk tale, one that had been told for thousands of years, one that evry child, every adult knew.
Then came Paulie.
Paulie was a zealot, both before and after he got traded to the new club. In Hockey he would be considered the enforcer.
He is writing to a new audience, marketing this new creation of his called Christianity and he often used old stories that folk likely knew as a platform for some new message, new interpretation.
BUT...if you look at Paulie's assertions and then go back and actually look at the stories themselves, often you find that Paulie has taken things out of context and revised the message to fight his marketing plan.
A GREAT modern example are the Mercury ads that have been running for several year in the US, Research the actual lyrics to the tune used as background music. Research Major Tom and then try to fit that into a reason to buy a Mercury?
Quotemining and reinterpretation has a long and glorious history, but don't get fooled into thinking that Paulie actually uses the quotes as their authors intended.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by hERICtic, posted 09-17-2010 6:40 AM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by hERICtic, posted 09-18-2010 1:24 PM jar has replied
 Message 103 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-20-2010 5:28 AM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 109 (581973)
09-18-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by hERICtic
09-18-2010 1:24 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
What makes you think that the authors of Genesis (and other books) didnt believe Adam was the first man though? I can "see" how it deals with why we fear snakes, wear clothes, pain in childbirth etc...but why would you assume the author was deliberately making up a story? On what basis is your line of thinking? Are you suggesting its not possible the authors actually believed these stories? Perhaps they were passed along to him?
First, you can't make any statements that apply to all the different authors. Different authors had different purposes and different audiences. About the only universal characteristic is that not one of the authors was writing anything for folk living today.
Genesis 2&3 though have all of the characteristics of folk story, a talking serpent, making critters out of mud, magic trees and fruit. It likely developed during a long long tradition of oral story tellers earning a meal and place to sleep.
It is a "Long long ago in a land far far away" story.
Matthew: 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Another great example of quotemining and recycling. Notice in that quote the primary reference is to Genesis 1 where the God in that story does create everything by sexes, but also alludes to Genesis 4 where the idea of Adam and Eve being married and virtual parents first shows up.
BUT...it also redirects the allusions. There is NOTHING in Genesis 1, 2, 3 or 4 even that shows a man leaving his father and mother. The sources simply don't have anything to do with the conclusion.
Based upon the scripture above, it would seem "Jesus" also accepted the story that humanity started with two individuals.
Or that the author of Matt used stories that the audience would be familiar with to introduce a totally different and unrelated subject.
What about the lineage found in Luke, tracing its way back to Adam? Do you beleive the author also accepted Genesis as you do or that he actually believed Adam was the first man?
Genealogy was very important at that time. Who you were related to determined what rights you had. Take the time to really read Numbers. It is not just begets and begats, it also involves what lad you could use, what your job would be, who you could marry, what you can inherit.
The later genealogies as found in the New Testament seem to be totally contrived, invented, and quite frankly, ad hoc creations.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by hERICtic, posted 09-18-2010 1:24 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by hERICtic, posted 09-18-2010 4:42 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 77 of 109 (582016)
09-18-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICANT
09-18-2010 4:11 PM


RE: Hebrew
Regardless there is no indication that Satan or Evil or Dinosaurs are involved in the Genesis 2&3 myth.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 4:11 PM ICANT has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 85 of 109 (582027)
09-18-2010 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by hERICtic
09-18-2010 4:42 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
"Jesus" doesnt say in Genesis that it states a man will leave his father and mother. He states that in Genesis (the beginning) that god made them male and female. Obviously, "Jesus" believed in the creation account then. He then states "for this reason" man is to be united with his wife.
Yes, you have said that.
There are several things involved though. I see no reason to think Jesus actually believed that the story was literally true, only that he used that story and redirected it towards the then current concept of marriage, a concept that does not even appear in the Genesis 1 account.
Remember that the incident Jesus is using is NOT the fable that has Adam in it.
I guess my point is, you clearly believe the authors of Genesis were conveying a fictional story. I believe the authors actually accepted the story as truth.
I don't doubt that you believe it, but I don't see any support for that position. If you read the Talmud it certainly does not appear that the Jews considered the stories as factual.
But the main aspect I believe, is that the authors in the NT actually did believe it to be true.
Again, while that is possible I don't see any evidence that supports that position.
Even the passage you quoted is an example of taking something from an old story and recycling it to make a totally unrelated point.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by hERICtic, posted 09-18-2010 4:42 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by hERICtic, posted 09-19-2010 10:11 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 88 of 109 (582047)
09-19-2010 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by hERICtic
09-19-2010 10:11 AM


allegory and allusion
Hello again. I hope you do not find my questions bothersome. Why do you not "see" any reason Jesus accepted it as true? Where does it indicate that? Jesus does not say god made male and female, he states in the "beginning" he made them that way. Clearly, in my opinion, hes using the Genesis account to back up his assertion. As for the marriage statement, Jesus does not say marriage is mentioned in Genesis. He is using Genesis, to show when male and female were created to back up his beliefs on marriage.
"IN the High and Far-Off Times the Elephant, O Best Beloved, had no trunk. He had only a blackish, bulgy nose, as big as a boot, that he could wriggle about from side to side; but he couldn't pick up things with it."
"Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. "
"And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. "
"ONCE upon a most early time was a Neolithic man. He was not a Jute or an Angle, or even a Dravidian, which he might well have been, Best Beloved, but never mind why. He was a Primitive, and he lived cavily in a Cave, and he wore very few clothes, and he couldn't read and he couldn't write and he didn't want to, and except when he was hungry he was quite happy."
Allusion is a powerful tool.
It sets a scene and directs the audience down the path the author is creating. In the example you used the author is making an indirect allusion to Genesis 1. BUT... the author is also simply using a very small part of the story since the point he is trying to make actually is not addressed in Genesis 1. In fact, in Genesis 1 there is nothing even remotely related to marriage and if you stop and think about it and try to take the passage in Matthew literally, it would mean that "In the beginning God created husband and wife and that they then must leave their father and mother."
The story though is not meant to be taken literally. It is meant (as Genesis 1 was) to illustrate a totally different concept, that marriage is itself a new creation, a paired and shared entity that is separate and distinct from what came before.
Do you have scripture to support this? From what I have read, there are verses in the Talmud which clearly believe Genesis as literal. In fact, based upon Genesis, the Talmud states each day was a thousand years. Also, from my limited reading on the topic, the Talmud does indicate Adam was the first male, although Eve was not his first wife. Heck, the stories in the Talmud are sillier than the Bible.
I'm not sure that you understand what the Talmud and Talmudic discussion really is and maybe not even what a Rabbi is.
First, a Rabbi is a religious teacher. The duty of a Rabbi is to study the scripture and law and try to bring together the actual reasoning and meaning as it applies to a society at a given time.
The Talmud is a collection (actually several collections) of discussions, debates, between different key Rabbis outlining how each viewed a particular subject.
The import thing about the Talmud is that it contains a variety of views on almost ever subject and almost never states which one of the views is considered correct or accepted.
Now, I've said I do not believe the authors in the NT believed in an allegorical Genesis, Adam. You disagreed.
Yet what evidence do you have to show "Jesus" and Paul didnt accept Adam as the first man?
From how they phrased it, refered to Adam, it seems clear both believed Adam existed.
A couple points. As mentioned above, when the author in Matthew has Jesus comment that "in the beginning God created them male and female" he is NOT referring to Adam. The comment there points back to Genesis 1, not Genesis 2&3.
This is also common practice in the Talmudic discussions where scriptural support is often by quoting only a few words and without attribution. The other people in the discussion are expected to know the Torah.
In the passage from Matthew you mentioned it appears that the author is simply having Jesus use an allusion to the Genesis 1 creation story where God creates all of the animals, including humans, as male and female to then go on and describe a new creation, husband and wife.
Paul is also using allusion but it is less clear what passage he is using. When Paul speaks of sin entering the world through one man, IF it is an allusion to Genesis 2&3, the story found in Genesis 2&3 itself refutes Paul's assertion. There does not seem to be any support in that fable for Paul's position.
A better possibility would be that he was making a reference to Genesis 4.
Edited by jar, : fix subtitle
Edited by jar, : fix subtitle spallin

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by hERICtic, posted 09-19-2010 10:11 AM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by hERICtic, posted 09-19-2010 12:53 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 91 of 109 (582060)
09-19-2010 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by hERICtic
09-19-2010 12:53 PM


Re: allegory and allusion
Let's start with this.
hERICtic writes:
Jar writes:
Paul is also using allusion but it is less clear what passage he is using. When Paul speaks of sin entering the world through one man, IF it is an allusion to Genesis 2&3, the story found in Genesis 2&3 itself refutes Paul's assertion. There does not seem to be any support in that fable for Paul's position.
A better possibility would be that he was making a reference to Genesis 4.
How does Genesis 3 refute Pauls position? Why is 4 a better position?
First, I can't find any example in the Genesis 2&3 story where anyone sinned. Adam and Eve at the beginning of the story can only be described as amoral, unable to tell right from wrong, like all other animals, unable to sin. It is only after they eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that they even have the capability of sin, for example, realizing they are naked.
But even if Paul was referring to Genesis 2&3, the idea that sin entered through one man is not supported. If you want to use Genesis 2&3 as what he is referring to, then sin would have been the result of God more than any others, by restricting the access to the knowledge needed to choose not to sin. If you want to exclude the God as the cause of sin then the blame must be shared by Adam, Eve and the Serpent (even though the serpent is the only character in the story that is honest and truthful).
I doubt that Paul is saying that God is the sinner.
However if he is referring to Genesis 4 then it might be possible to make an argument that sin entered the world through the acts of Cain. That fable takes place after humans have learned to distinguish right from wrong and so an argument could be made that it is that story that points to both the origin of sin and of death (meaning violent death and murder) entering the world.
So I'm not sure why you brought up the Talmud then. I'm not suggesting no one believed it was allegory, just that the authors in the Bible believed it to be literal.
Because I don't see any evidence that the author saw it as literal, anymore than in the other passages I quoted. The author of Matthew uses allegory and illustration consistently throughout the Gospel. Why would that one passage be any different?
Remember, marriage evolves throughout the Bible, just as God evolves.
Edited by jar, : entered ----> entering
Edited by jar, : allagory ----> allegory

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by hERICtic, posted 09-19-2010 12:53 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by hERICtic, posted 09-19-2010 6:48 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 95 of 109 (582089)
09-19-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by hERICtic
09-19-2010 6:24 PM


Re: allegory and allusion
I've been trying to find any reference in either the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud that supports either or the Genesis stories as being factual. Can you point me towards the discussion where that is found?
Edited by jar, : fix my appalin spallin in the subtitle

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by hERICtic, posted 09-19-2010 6:24 PM hERICtic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-20-2010 5:06 AM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 97 of 109 (582093)
09-19-2010 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by hERICtic
09-19-2010 6:48 PM


Re: allagory and allusion
So we cannot tell whether Paul is referring to Genesis 2&3 or Genesis 4. I can see how it is possible to make a case for the latter but not the former.
Paul was a Jew, and an educated Jew, so I see no reason that he would not see the stories in the same sense as other educated Jews.
Do you accept any of the supernatural stories then as literal or are they all allegory?
Depends on the story. But here we are not talking about supernatural stories as the term is usually meant. We are talking about authors that do use allegory constantly and effectively in both Matthew and the Pauline texts.
I thought god never changes!
The depictions of god evolve constantly in the bible stories. Just look at the god depicted in Genesis 1 and compare it to the god depicted in Genesis 2&3.
AbE: Forgot this one.
No, I believe he blames Eve.
No, he did not blame Eve. We can be sure of that. Remember he says that sin and death entered through the acts of one man. That let's Eve off the hook.
Edited by jar, : FREE EvE!!!!!!!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by hERICtic, posted 09-19-2010 6:48 PM hERICtic has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024