Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 34 of 109 (581075)
09-13-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
09-13-2010 12:05 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
ICANT writes:
Can you point out in the story in Genesis 2:4-25 where there was anything other than dry land except where the river from Eden that divided into 4 rivers, where there was anything but dry land.
Where do you suppose the rivers flowed to?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 09-13-2010 12:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 09-13-2010 4:39 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 38 of 109 (581103)
09-13-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ICANT
09-13-2010 4:39 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
ICANT writes:
ringo writes:
Where do you suppose the rivers flowed to?
Is that supposed to be a trick question?
No. It's supposed to illustrate how silly your assumption is that there were no seas.
ICANT writes:
It watered the garden and then went out to water the rest of the land. You do know that land can consume a lot of water don't you?
There's no reason to assume that the rivers just disappeared into the land. That isn't the normal behaviour of rivers.
ICANT writes:
But that does not have anything to do with the first man on the earth (land mass that was dry).
It does, actually.
A better answer for you to have given is that the rivers flowed out of the story, much like the Mississippi flowed into The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn at the beginning and flowed out at the end. Only the part of the river that's relevant to the story is mentioned. It's quite proper for us to assume that the Mississippi continues outside of the story and that the rivers of Eden continued outside of the story.
Similarly, it's quite proper to assume that other members of mankind existed outside of the story.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 09-13-2010 4:39 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2010 5:41 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 42 of 109 (581250)
09-14-2010 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ICANT
09-14-2010 5:41 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
ICANT writes:
Now if the river flowed into a low place and the ground could not absorb the water it would fill up that low place.
There was no rain to fill the river.
So there was no water to fill the seas in the beginning.
Non sequitur. We know that there were rivers in the story. Ergo, there were seas, even if they were outside the story.
ICANT writes:
The land was watered by a mist that came from the earth. Not the sky. Gen. 2:6.
That's a further indication that the story doesn't apply to the whole earth. The earth as a whole is watered from the sky. The water cycle applies wherever there is water on the ground and a sun in the sky. Only certain small areas are watered solely by irrigation. (The "watered by mist" element in the story seems largely or wholly fictional.)
ICANT writes:
In Genesis 2:8 God then planted a garden and caused the vegetation to grow out of the ground.
So according to the text the man formed from the dust of the ground was the first living life form on the dry land.
No. The text seems pretty plain that he was the first life form in the garden.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2010 5:41 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 09-15-2010 11:30 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 46 of 109 (581390)
09-15-2010 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ICANT
09-15-2010 11:30 AM


Re: Erets and Adamah
ICANT writes:
According to what I can find it was too hot in the beginning for water to exist. So at what point did it begin to exist?
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.
ICANT writes:
The story in chapter 2 of Genesis is not talking about a few thousand years ago. It is talking about the day the Heaven and the Earth began to exist.
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.
ICANT writes:
We are supposed to be discussing what the Biblical text says.
Which is:
Genesis 2:5 "the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth."
"there was no man to till the ground."
Genesis 2:6 "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."
There was no source of water to form the 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.
ICANT writes:
God formed man and breathed into his nostrils and he bacame a living being. First life form.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 09-15-2010 11:30 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by ICANT, posted 09-15-2010 1:19 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 48 of 109 (581419)
09-15-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ICANT
09-15-2010 1:19 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
ICANT writes:
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.
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.
ICANT writes:
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.
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.
ICANT writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ICANT, posted 09-15-2010 1:19 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 09-15-2010 9:00 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 52 of 109 (581502)
09-15-2010 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
09-15-2010 9:00 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
ICANT writes:
How do you replenish something unless it has already existed at least one time.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 09-15-2010 9:00 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by hERICtic, posted 09-16-2010 5:13 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 56 of 109 (581578)
09-16-2010 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by hERICtic
09-16-2010 5:13 AM


Re: Erets and Adamah
hERICtic writes:
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?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by hERICtic, posted 09-16-2010 5:13 AM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by hERICtic, posted 09-17-2010 6:40 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 60 of 109 (581760)
09-17-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by hERICtic
09-17-2010 6:40 AM


hERICtic writes:
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.
Not really. It makes more sense if Adam was a fictional character representing the origin of sin in each one of us.
hERICtic writes:
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?
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.
hERICtic writes:
I fail to see where any verse states men existed before Adam.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by hERICtic, posted 09-17-2010 6:40 AM hERICtic has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 64 of 109 (581988)
09-18-2010 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by hERICtic
09-18-2010 1:24 PM


hERICtic writes:
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?
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.

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

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 65 by Buzsaw, posted 09-18-2010 2:54 PM ringo has replied
 Message 66 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 3:11 PM ringo has replied
 Message 80 by hERICtic, posted 09-18-2010 4:36 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 67 of 109 (582000)
09-18-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Buzsaw
09-18-2010 2:54 PM


RE: Talking Snakes
Buzsaw writes:
Biblically there were no snakes at the time the serpent communicated with man.
Nonsense. The Bible says no such thing. You're just making that up.
Ironic, ain't it? You're making up fiction to try to prove that Bible fiction isn't fiction.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Buzsaw, posted 09-18-2010 2:54 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Buzsaw, posted 09-18-2010 3:37 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 70 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 3:44 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 68 of 109 (582002)
09-18-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ICANT
09-18-2010 3:11 PM


Re: Talking
ICANT writes:
Now if humans can accomplish such a feat what would keep Satan from being able to speak through a snake, serpent, tree, or the fruit itself.
There is no Satan in the story.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 3:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 4:00 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 73 of 109 (582011)
09-18-2010 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by DC85
09-18-2010 3:44 PM


RE: Talking Snakes
DC85 writes:
How does the Bible define "serpent"?
The Hebrew nâchâsh means "snake", probably an onamatapoeia for "hiss".
Edited by ringo, : Fixed formatting.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by DC85, posted 09-18-2010 3:44 PM DC85 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 4:11 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 78 of 109 (582017)
09-18-2010 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICANT
09-18-2010 4:11 PM


RE: Hebrew
ICANT writes:
Snake was added as an explanation of what a serpent was.
Exactly, because "serpent" means "snake". References to other creatures as "serpents" are figurative, indicating that they are "snake-like" (simile, "like a snake"). Serpents are snakes are serpents.
And they don't talk, which was my point. The story is obviously fictional. Therefore, the man refered to in it is also fictional, not an actual "first man". By insisting that there really was a talking snake/dinosaur/whatever, you're just underlining how ludicrous a literal interpretation of the story is.

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

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 09-18-2010 4:35 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 84 of 109 (582024)
09-18-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by hERICtic
09-18-2010 4:36 PM


hERICtic writes:
ringo writes:
It wasn't until the Dark Ages that people became dumb enough to take it literally.
So people was smarter back then?
Do you have any evidence that the Hebrews and the early Christians took those stories literally?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by hERICtic, posted 09-18-2010 4:36 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by hERICtic, posted 09-19-2010 9:54 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 90 of 109 (582057)
09-19-2010 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by hERICtic
09-19-2010 9:54 AM


hERICtic writes:
Yet I have a hard time accepting that Paul and other authors did not find it literal, based upon their writings.
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.
hERICtic writes:
Paul goes out of his way it seems to clearly show Adam and Eve existed and brought sin into the world.
Paul went out of his way to show that sin resides in all of us. We all bring sin into the world. I think having Adam "bring sin into the world", like Prometheus, is an indication that Paul didn't take Adam literally. If we inherited sin from a literal Adam, that would negate all personal responsibility.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by hERICtic, posted 09-19-2010 9:54 AM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by hERICtic, posted 09-19-2010 6:22 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024