Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 53 of 109 (581526)
09-16-2010 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by ringo
09-15-2010 9:19 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 09-15-2010 9:19 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 09-16-2010 12:12 PM hERICtic has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 59 of 109 (581715)
09-17-2010 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by ringo
09-16-2010 12:12 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 09-16-2010 12:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by ringo, posted 09-17-2010 12:04 PM hERICtic has not replied
 Message 61 by jar, posted 09-17-2010 1:08 PM hERICtic has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 62 of 109 (581968)
09-18-2010 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
09-17-2010 1:08 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
I was going to ask Ringo if Paul believed in Genesis as just a story. Then I read your post. Answered my question.
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?
Matthew: 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 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'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Based upon the scripture above, it would seem "Jesus" also accepted the story that humanity started with two individuals.
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?
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 09-17-2010 1:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 09-18-2010 1:52 PM hERICtic has replied
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 2:34 PM hERICtic has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 80 of 109 (582020)
09-18-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ringo
09-18-2010 2:34 PM


Ringo writes:
As I often tell people, the talking snake should be your first clue. Do you really think Paul believed in talking snakes?
The snake has at least two functions in the story:
He's somebody for Eve to talk to, since there were no other people except Adam, who had another role to play. If Shakespeare had written Genesis, he might have had Eve do a soliloquy instead.
Yet there are many cultures with very outlandish beliefs. Are they all just stories that the authors knew to be false? As for Paul believing in a talking snake...
There are many crazy stories in the OT, which I believe the author thought came to pass. Is a talking snake really that hard to accept then? There was a talking donkey, men flying around, bears who attack children on command by a man balding, men standing in fire and not burning, a woman turning to salt....
As a huge flashing neon sign proclaiming, "THIS IS FICTION!"
It wasn't until the Dark Ages that people became dumb enough to take it literally.
So people was smarter back then? Most people today believe in the most ridiculous things, I would assume 6000 years ago before science, it was a lot easier to have crazy ideas and concepts!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 2:34 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 4:49 PM hERICtic has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 82 of 109 (582022)
09-18-2010 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by jar
09-18-2010 1:52 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
Jar writes:
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.
"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.
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.
But the main aspect I believe, is that the authors in the NT actually did believe it to be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 09-18-2010 1:52 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 09-18-2010 5:08 PM hERICtic has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 86 of 109 (582039)
09-19-2010 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by ringo
09-18-2010 4:49 PM


Ringo writes:
Do you have any evidence that the Hebrews and the early Christians took those stories literally?
I spent about a half hour looking up "our points" and found quite a few sites regarding early beliefs regarding Genesis.
A few believed it was literal and quite a few did not. But I could find nothing on the belief if Adam was a literal belief or allegory.
Perhaps you have some information on that?
Also, those that believed it was allegory, clearly stated so.
Yet I have a hard time accepting that Paul and other authors did not find it literal, based upon their writings.
Paul goes out of his way it seems to clearly show Adam and Eve existed and brought sin into the world.
Do you have information that differs on this?
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 4:49 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 09-19-2010 12:59 PM hERICtic has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 87 of 109 (582040)
09-19-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by jar
09-18-2010 5:08 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
Jar writes:
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.
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.
Jar writes:
If you read the Talmud it certainly does not appear that the Jews considered the stories as factual.
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.
Obviously you've read a lot more on this topic than I have, so please, if you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to see them.
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.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 09-18-2010 5:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 09-19-2010 11:36 AM hERICtic has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 89 of 109 (582055)
09-19-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by jar
09-19-2010 11:36 AM


Re: allagory and allusion
Jar writes:
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.
I understand what a rabbi is as well as what the Talmud is. You were the one who suggested that the Talmud backs up your assertion that Genesis is allegory. My point is that it also states the opposite. Why even bring it up to back up your point, if it agrees with both sides?
We are dealing with what scripture states. You referenced the Talmud to show early writers agreed it was not to be taken literally. Yet the references I found using the Talmud, differ.
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.
Jar writes:
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.
I see it quite differently though.
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 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'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Jesus is showing that god created man and woman, to be joined as one. If Jesus had said, "God made male and female so that they may be united...." I would understand your point. But the fact he states "in the beginning" means Jesus accepted the story as fact. If Jesus did not believe the story as literal, why use the term "in the beginning"? Where do you get the idea that marriage is "new" concept? Marriage was in idea long before Jesus brought up the topic.
Jar writes:
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.
Interesting. Well, you just ruined by entire argument then. Hope you're happy!!!
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 09-19-2010 11:36 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 09-19-2010 1:19 PM hERICtic has replied
 Message 92 by purpledawn, posted 09-19-2010 2:22 PM hERICtic has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 93 of 109 (582086)
09-19-2010 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ringo
09-19-2010 12:59 PM


Ringo writes:
I have a hard time accepting that Paul was foolish enough to think talking snakes were real.
You and I can talk about Santa Claus, aliens or Bigfoot without believing they're real and without explicitly stating what we believe. We both understand that they're not real, so there's no need to mention it. Similarly, Paul and his audience knew that the stories in the Old Testament weren't literally true, so there was no need to mention it.
Wait a second. With the knowledge of science today MILLIONS believe in the OT stories as factual. How many on this site alone believe it to be so? Why would those thousands of years ago be any different? We know for a fact there were many crazy ideas and beliefs thousands of years ago. Why is a talking snake so much more ludicrious? Do you think a talking donkey was also an allegory? Men flying into the sky? Bread dropping from heaven? Dead coming back to life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 09-19-2010 12:59 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 09-19-2010 8:25 PM hERICtic has not replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 94 of 109 (582088)
09-19-2010 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by purpledawn
09-19-2010 2:22 PM


Re: allagory and allusion
PD writes:
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.
I agree. I didnt bring up the Talmud though to support my assertions. Both points of view can be found in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by purpledawn, posted 09-19-2010 2:22 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 09-19-2010 6:29 PM hERICtic has not replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 96 of 109 (582091)
09-19-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
09-19-2010 1:19 PM


Re: allagory and allusion
Jar writes:
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.
I agree. There isnt any way for them to know right from wrong. But the Christian mindset, which may have also been Pauls, is that they disobeyed god. Eve was told NOT to eat and she did.
Jar writes:
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).
LOL! I agree with you 100%. I have had this debate with many Christians. Yet no matter how its explained, they'll accept that it was Eve who created the first sin. Again, why couldnt Paul see it that way?
I doubt that Paul is saying that God is the sinner.
No, I believe he blames Eve.
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.
I can see that. Very well thought out.
Jar writes:
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?
Do you accept any of the supernatural stories then as literal or are they all allegory?
Jar writes:
Remember, marriage evolves throughout the Bible, just as God evolves.
I thought god never changes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 09-19-2010 1:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 09-19-2010 7:13 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