Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 15 of 109 (580567)
09-10-2010 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by nwr
09-08-2010 11:46 PM


How did the intended audience understand it?
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 11:46 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 09-10-2010 7:06 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 18 by purpledawn, posted 09-10-2010 9:10 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 19 by GDR, posted 09-10-2010 11:04 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 104 by jaywill, posted 09-20-2010 7:38 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 20 of 109 (580631)
09-10-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by nwr
09-10-2010 7:06 AM


Re: How did the intended audience understand it?
It is very common to make such allusions to fictional characters. People today often make similar allusions to sitcom characters.
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 am wondering how you are reaching this conclusion about how the Jewish people appreciated the story.
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 see that you managed to avoid commenting on this:
Oh, and as somebody raised in Australia, I'll point out that aborigines were living in Australia long before the time of Adam.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 09-10-2010 7:06 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 09-10-2010 12:41 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 09-10-2010 4:35 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 22 of 109 (580649)
09-10-2010 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nwr
09-10-2010 12:41 PM


Re: How did the intended audience understand it?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 09-10-2010 12:41 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nwr, posted 09-10-2010 2:40 PM Just being real 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