Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?

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

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.

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

quote:

---

So this man was not only the first man on earth he was the first living life form on earth.

---

Erets and adamah are not the planet. (Not The Planet)The story doesn't tell us that Adam was the first man on the planet or the first living life form on the planet.

quote:

---

There was no fish or water creatures in this story.

​

Which means:

​

There was no seas at that time.

---

Aside from the obvious that jar mentioned, it also means that the creation wasn't the main point of that story. A storyteller brings in the pieces that build on the point or moral he is trying to make.Just like when I apply for an executive secretary position, I don't bring up my aluminum siding skills. They are irrelevant to the interview for that job.We have to remember that this story was probably told in a tribal setting. Most people were illiterate. They weren't checking details after the story and the Genesis 1 story wasn't written yet.I'm sure the storyteller had an answer for anyone who did ask about fish or the seas. The lack of fish or oceans in the story, does not make erets or adamah encompass the entire planet.

quote:

---

The story in Genesis 2:5-25 was to explain what took place in the DAY the earth and heaven was created.

---

We aren't going to get anywhere until you make it clear whether you are using earth as in planet or earth and in land/region.

quote:

---

The first life form on earth.

---

The most you can say from the story is the first man/life form in the land or region.

quote:

---

Does Science posit that the earth has always had water?

---

Irrelevant.As I said, the lack of fish or oceans in the story, does not make erets or adamah encompass the entire planet.So the storyteller is not referring to the planet and Cain took a wife. The story doesn't tell us that Adam was the first man on the planet. The information just isn't there.

quote:

---

Any land that man could walk upon.

---

Great, we aren't talking about the planet.

quote:

---

Since there was no seas in the beginning that means he could walk on all that existed at that time.

---

Genesis 2 doesn't tell us there were no seas. Seas weren't part of the story.

quote:

---

Well according to the Biblical text we are discussing there was no man to till the land.

​

So it makes no difference where the land was there was no man to till the land.

---

Not the planet, so the land is limited to the areas known by the audience. The story doesn't encompass the planet.

quote:

---

purpledawn writes:

​

So the storyteller is not referring to the planet and Cain took a wife.

​

Quit adding to the text.

​

Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

​

That text does not say anything about Cain finding a wife.

---

Neither did I if you look at what you quoted. He had to be with her to have sex with her. Cain had a wife.

quote:

---

Does that mean that Adam found Eve his wife?

​

Or does it mean they had sex and Cain was the product of that relationship?

​

The same goes for Cain knowing his wife and her bearing Enoch.

---

You're losing it. I have no idea what your point is concerning Cain.

quote:

---

No fish, or water fowl formed leads me to believe there was no seas, to put them in.

​

The river had to provide pure drinking water, so no fish was introduced.

---

The story doesn't give you that information. It isn't the point of the story. The garden is the setting for the story.

quote:

---

What part of the FACE OF THE EARTH do you not understand?

---

You can yell all you want, but if you are referring to the planet, then use the word planet. Unfortunately erets and adamah do not refer to the planet or all existing land beyond the knowledge of the storyteller. If you want to continue that discussion, then please go to the thread I referenced in Message 31 for further discussion. Not The Planet Show evidence there that the word refers to the planet or regions beyond the audiences knowledge.

quote:

---

I understood you to be infering Cain took a wife in the land he had gone into which was Nod.

​

Are you now saying that Cain took his wife to the land of Nod and there they had sex and produced Enoch?

​

You are trying to support your belief that the earth is not the entire planet and there was people living on other parts of the earth.

---

"Took a wife" is an idiom for getting married.The story doesn't tell us that Adam was the first humanoid on the planet. At the time Genesis 2 was probably written, the audience wouldn't have understood it to mean the entire planet. If you have evidence that they did, please present it in the other thread.At most we can infer by the story that Adam may have been the first semitic man. (Message 18)

quote:

---

We are discussing the Biblical account found in the Bible not in the musings of purpledawn.

---

Exactly, we are discussing the Biblical account found n the Bible not in the musings of purpledawn or ICANT.

quote:

---

Unless you read the text and accept what it says as literal events and truth.

---

Literal or otherwise, it still doesn't support your position.The word erets and adamah don't refer to the planet Earth. Literally the story is referring to areas known to man at the time. As I said, if you wish to argue that they refer to the planet and show me otherwise, then go to the appropriate thread.

Since you apparently don't get the point that continuing this issue is off topic and to take it to the other thread, you can find my answer to your post in the other thread entitled: Not The Planet.

quote:

---

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.

---

The point is that you don't actually know what the authors believed concerning the stories.Referring to a fictional story in an attempt to make a real world point, doesn't automatically mean the author thought the fictional story was real or literal. Are the gentlemen who referenced Gekko saying that the movie was a factual account and Gordon Gekko is not a fictional character? No.Those who have seen the movie know he is fictional and understand the point being made.When people don't know or have lost touch with the story, then it is more difficult for them to understand the point. That is much of the problem with the Bible. We are far removed from the culture and the lessons taught by the stories.That's why we have to understand the stories and teachings in their historic setting. Then we can see that the Bible doesn't really support the concept that Adam was the first male on the planet Earth.

---

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