Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?

If it was too hot for water to exist, obviously it was too hot for man to exist. Man could not exist until after water existed. Contrary to your misunderstanding, the story does strongly indicate that it happened only a few thousand years ago, according to the list of descendents of the man in the story. It's just ludicrous to suggest that the story took place before there were seas. You're the one who's spinning what the text says. Things that are not mentioned in the story - e.g. seas and other humans - can not be assumed to not exist just because they aren't mentioned. That isn't how human communication works.Humans have memory. All communication is in context. You can't take the Genesis story as a blank slate. People hearing the story had knowledge of other things that didn't need to be mentioned explicitly. Nothing in the text suggests that the he was the first life form. He was just the first life form mentioned in that story.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Hi ringo, AH but it had cooled to the point we have a river mentioned we just don't have seas mentioned.The river provided the water man needed to survive.About 70% of the earth's surface is covered with water today. There is more than 7 times the amount of water in the earth than there is on the earth.That is a lot of water that had to come from somewhere. Its not my misunderstanding of what the Bible says. It is your lack of understanding of what the Bible says since you only believe it is a story, that is a myth anyway.ringo says: "Nothing in the text suggests that he was the first life form."Then ringo says: "He was just the first life form mentioned in that story."The latter contradicts the first.I take from your statement that according to the Biblical text that it does declare that this man was the first life form.If that is not what you meant please correct my understanding. What difference does it make what the people knew then or now.Moses was instructed by God what to write in the books he wrote so it is not dependent on what other people's knowledge was or is.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."

You're illustrating your misunderstanding. We're talking about what the story says, not your peculiar beliefs about what it "means". What the story says is the same whether it's a myth or a newspaper account. There's no contradiction. The topic is about the first man on the planet, the one who was told in Genesis 1 to go forth and multiply and replenish the earth. The man in Genesis 2 is the first man mentioned in the story of Genesis 2, just like Job was the first man mentioned in the story of Job.If something isn't mentioned in the story of Job, you don't assume that it didn't exist. It just isn't mentioned because it's irrelevant to the story. You should extend the same courtesy to Genesis 2 and not make unfounded assumptions about it. Of course it's dependent on what people's knowledge was. No matter who wrote it, the Bible was intended to communicate, wasn't it?

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

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)

Hi PD, Unless you read the text and accept what it says as literal events and truth. We are discussing the Biblical account found in the Bible not in the musings of purpledawn.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 ringo, I think I ask you this question a couple of years ago but I will ask it again.How do you refill a glass that has not been filled?The same goes for the earth.How do you replenish something unless it has already existed at least one time.But the mankind in Genesis 1:27 created male and female and in the image/likeness of God was the advent of modern man and took place only a few thousand years ago. Just to throw a twist in here them created does not designate a single male and a single female. There could have been lots of them.The man in Genesis 2:7 formed from the dust of the ground took place in the same light period that the Heaven and Earth began to exist.He is listed in the generations of the Heaven and the Earth. So some time before the darkness found in Genesis 1:2 during the light period the Heaven and the Earth was created the first man was formed from the dust of the ground. He lived and died in that same light period thus God did not lie when He told him he would die the day he ate the forbidden fruit.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."

Been there, done that. The word "replenish" does not mean "plenish again". It means "fill".But that has nothing to do with the topic. The point being made here is that the man mentioned in Genesis 2 is not refered to as the first man on the planet, only the first man in the garden.The rest of your post is just unsubstantiated meandering.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Ringo,Are you stating that the Bible does not show Adam and Eve as the first people, or just that Genesis 1 and 2 makes no mention of this?Genesis 3 seems to clearly indicate otherwise:Genesis 3: 20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

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.

Hi PD, The only word available to Moses was erets.The word planet did not exist when he wrote the TorahIn fact the definition is still changing. SourceSo the statement: If the ground in China, Australia, Japan, Europe and the Americas is considered a part of the earth then the ground in Genesis 2:5 would be any ground that existed at that time.You are trying to apply a modern term that is still evolving to an ancient Hebrew word.Definition: Earth SourceErets
According to Brown, Driver, Biggs Lexicon means:
1) land, earthThe modern definition of earth is land.
The Hebrew definition of earth is land.So all you are doing is trying to obfuscate the meaning of the Hebrew word אדץ.So the text "there was not a man to till the ground", would include any ground that existed.Which would mean the man formed from the dust of the ground was the first life form on the אדץ.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."

I don't think The Bible™ is at all clear on whether "Adam" and "Eve" were a literal first couple or not. Genesis 1 talks about people, not necessarily one couple. Genesis 2 is a localized story and doesn't specifically say there weren't other people outside the garden. Genesis 3 calls Eve the mother of all living but "all living" at the time of writing would be flood survivors - i.e. the other people of Genesis 1 and/or 2 could have been lost in the flood. Genesis 4 says that Cain had a wife and maybe fundies can blithely accept incest but I can't.So "Biblically", as the topic title asks, I don't think we can say for sure whether Adam was the "first man" or not.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

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.

It most assuredly did not; a fact that is easily demonstrated via Bible study.And, as Purple Dawn has recommended, you should take this detail of the debate to an appropriate thread, like mine: Not The Planet. Looking forward to seeing you there.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Hey Ringo,I see what you are saying regarding Genesis, but....Romans 5: 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.This easily suggests that sin came about due to Adam. If there were other people before Adam, did sin NOT exist? The story makes more sense if Adam was the first.1 Corinthians 15: 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.If other "men" existed, then Adam was not the first man.Also, back to Genesis 2....18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."Why would god need to make a suitbale helper if other woman existed as you believe?19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found.God seems so naive that he created the animals to help Adam first, yet none sufficed. Obviously, the thought of a woman helper didnt occur to him yet.21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [k] '
for she was taken out of man."This would indicate that "women" did not exist yet, since the very term "woman" came about (well, according tot he story) from being taken from Adam.I fail to see where any verse states men existed before Adam.

Not really. It makes more sense if Adam was a fictional character representing the origin of sin in each one of us. It's a story. It's a story about why certain things are the way they are, why we don't like snakes, why women have pain in childbirth, etc. It's like Frodo showing how a little guy can accomplish great things. It doesn't mean that Frodo is real. He represents the little guy in all of us. I didn't say it did.It's a mistake to think of Adam as "first" because he represents all mankind, from the beginning right up until now. "First" has no meaning in that context.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi