Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?

Let's start with this. 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.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).I doubt that Paul is saying that God is the sinner.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. 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?Remember, marriage evolves throughout the Bible, just as God evolves. Edited by jar, : entered ----> enteringEdited by jar, : allagory ----> allegory

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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

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?

I agree. I didnt bring up the Talmud though to support my assertions. Both points of view can be found in it.

I've been trying to find any reference in either the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud that supports either or the Genesis stories as being factual. Can you point me towards the discussion where that is found?Edited by jar, : fix my appalin spallin in the subtitle

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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. 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? No, I believe he blames Eve. I can see that. Very well thought out. Do you accept any of the supernatural stories then as literal or are they all allegory? I thought god never changes!

So we cannot tell whether Paul is referring to Genesis 2&3 or Genesis 4. I can see how it is possible to make a case for the latter but not the former.Paul was a Jew, and an educated Jew, so I see no reason that he would not see the stories in the same sense as other educated Jews. Depends on the story. But here we are not talking about supernatural stories as the term is usually meant. We are talking about authors that do use allegory constantly and effectively in both Matthew and the Pauline texts. The depictions of god evolve constantly in the bible stories. Just look at the god depicted in Genesis 1 and compare it to the god depicted in Genesis 2&3.AbE: Forgot this one. No, he did not blame Eve. We can be sure of that. Remember he says that sin and death entered through the acts of one man. That let's Eve off the hook.Edited by jar, : FREE EvE!!!!!!!

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Well, of course there were and are people dumb enough to take the stories literally. They're the same people who follow their horoscopes, wear magic crystals and buy the Brooklyn Bridge. I'm talking about people who are smart enough to tell truth from fiction. They'd better be. Otherwise, the Bible is nothing but a cartoon.

---

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

Not true at all. You have fallen for a common disinformation trap/lie and frankly I'm sick of seeing this crap in every thread in this forum I've been in so far. Well I've only been in three since I've been here, Im assunming if it's in those three then it's in all of em.As a result I had a wee yarn with the Director of this site and from the horses mouth he's not at all concerned about lying or liars in this forum on the basis that the facts are out there for anybody who choses to search for them. He's got a valid point, but just for those who can't be bothered searching for the truth ( or simply can't read with a basic reading level of an 11 year old) instead chosing to believe everything they read, I'm here to tell you this comment is based on a lie/is a lie.Go to the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 Inerency of the the bible thread if you want to prove what I have said to be incorrect. There you will find a tag team of disinformation thought terrorists (skilled in the art with a combined post count nearing 100 thousand) to support you but I assure you, you still wont be able to prove this fallacy as a fact even if every one of you turn up there to have a crack at doing so.God bless.PS: Biblically yes of course Adam was the first man. What is this get up? Seriously are you cowboys for reals or what? Or is this place a giant mind bending piss take of all things biblical? (rhetorical question)It's at times like this I wish I was an unbeliever because it would be so much fun being on your side, especially when one more fool like me shows up to take your stinkin bait. LOLWas Harry Potter the first wizard? Now let's discuss something worth while huh huh can we huh?Sheeeeeeeeesh!PPS. And this the "Bible Study" section of the Forum... ROTFLMFAO Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : WarningEdited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Are you aware that Aborigine means original people?? Austrailians are not the only people with Aborigines. Sheeesh.Adam was the original original the aborigine of Abos. Please prove otherwise. Thank you.Throw away lines are the order of the day in here but I mean common buck your ideas up folks, if you don't want to be mocked until the rapture by me.And you say arguments over the word "replenish" seem silly. LOL. Serioulsy LOL!!!Look up the meaning of words before you post this sort of iliteracy please.Threads with Questions like was Adam the original cowboy are really really really silly arent they?Was Adam the first man to have a crack at shagging a sheep before he said "Oi God, stuff this for a game of soldiers daddy! Have you got anything better???I mean thats got more validity to it than this. " Biblically" was Adam the first man insanity....According to the Bagavadgita was Adam the first man? Might wash but not this keek!In fact " Aborigine" qualifies as the original flaura and fauna of a region as well - if one wants to be precise. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Why do you always want to push your own barrow in every thread??The OP is "Biblically was Adam the first man", not according to the Talmud and or Muhamud Ali is Genesis factual? Hello???? Is anybody home?? 17000 posts of this nonsense. Are you sane in there? I'm not going to make it to 50 posts without losing my salvation let alone my sanity in this joint. LOL (thats of course if it was a biblical possiblity if one could lose their salvation) Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Forum Guidelines
Rule #4 - Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.Rule #10 - Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.NOMA,
Stop attacking the people! Present a rebuttal with evidence or reasoned argumentation for your position. Insults are not evidence or reasoned argumentation.Don't just tell us someone's position or evidence is wrong, show us that they are wrong without the colorful insults. Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.Thank you
AdminPD

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

What I understand is; there is no single purpose to any of your 17000 plus posts other than to discredit and post disinformation about the vailidy of the Holy Bible.But no single pupose to any of the "stories" in the bible, how did you figure that one out JAR? Because - this is your biggest disinformation AKA lie I have seen you come out with so far.The single purpose of the 66 books of the Bible is the revelation of the Saviour of Mankind The Lord Jesus Christ and that is a biblical fact commonly known by, not only every Christian that has walked the face of this earth but also the 100 million or so who where slaughtered for nothing more than believing it, not to mention all serious bible scholars regardless of their religious persusion.So take your little purple telly tubby off your shoulder and put the chip on it that you clearly have towards all things biblical, at least that would be more honest of you.It's crystal clear after reading about 5 of your posts that you have a seriously transparent resentment towards the bible. Why? I don't know but I'm sure I will find out eventually. I already have my suspicians as to why. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Thankyou Buzsaw.And Mark 10:6 also seems to unite both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 together. "From the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:6) certainly corresponds to "In the beginning God created ..." (Genesis 1:1) "He made them male and female" (Mark 10:6) certainly corresponds to " ... male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27)Yet the following verses 7,8 of Mark 10 - "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife; And the two shall be one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh" is quite unmistakenly a reference to Genesis 2:24.Jesus united the two chapters of Genesis 1 and 2 as telling essentially one history about the world's first man and woman.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Adam is the father of the human race just as George Washington is the father of America