Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 3 of 109 (580416)
09-08-2010 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
09-08-2010 10:52 PM


Buzsaw writes:
In Genesis 1:28 ...
Genesis 1 is part of a different creation story. Adam isn't even mentioned.
For Genesis 2-4, it is quite clear from the writing style that it is of the genre of fables. My read is that it is only intended to explain the origin of the Jewish peoples. There appear to have been other people around, such as in the land of Nod where Cain apparently found a wife. And in that case, clearly Adam was not the first homo sapiens, but is intended to symbolize the first in the particular line of ancestry that became the Jewish people.
Oh, and as somebody raised in Australia, I'll point out that aborigines were living in Australia long before the time of Adam.
Arguments over the word "replenish" seem silly.
Incidently, I think you might have missed the point being made by Jeff Davis in Message 11 of his introduction thread. He wasn't making a point about Adam. Rather, he was making a point about what a strict literalism would imply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2010 10:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 4:56 AM nwr has replied
 Message 100 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-20-2010 4:58 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 16 of 109 (580578)
09-10-2010 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Just being real
09-10-2010 4:56 AM


Re: How did the intended audience understand it?
Just being real writes:
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.
I am wondering how you are reaching this conclusion about how the Jewish people appreciated the story.
Just being real writes:
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)
It is very common to make such allusions to fictional characters. People today often make similar allusions to sitcom characters.
Just being real writes:
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.
No, I don't think that is at all clear.
Just being real writes:
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.
I see that you managed to avoid commenting on this:
nwr writes:
Oh, and as somebody raised in Australia, I'll point out that aborigines were living in Australia long before the time of Adam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 4:56 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 12:09 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 21 of 109 (580638)
09-10-2010 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Just being real
09-10-2010 12:09 PM


Re: How did the intended audience understand it?
Just being real writes:
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.
Fair enough.
The reality of the Bible, is that the Adam and Eve story reads as something of the genre of fables. Therefore, putting our own beliefs aside, we should read it as a fable. Hence we cannot conclude that Adam was the first man.
If you want to go by your "Willie Wonka" analogy, then you would have to be talking of "reality according to the Adam and Eve story" rather than of "reality according to the Bible."
Just being real writes:
Rather you personally believe that Jesus was merely a sitcom character or a real person is not relevant to the question posed.
Wow! You must have completely missed the point. I was not in any way suggesting that "Jesus was merely a sitcom character."
There are actual logic books that contain quotes from Sherlock Holmes. They never mention that Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character. And these are technical logic books that place an emphasis on truth.
The point is that it is entirely normal for people, in their writing and speaking, to allude to fictional characters without any mention that they are fictional. And thus there is no basis for concluding that the referenced characters are not fictional. That Jesus alluded to Adam is zero evidence that Jesus believed Adam to have been real. If Jesus believed Adam to be a well understood, but fictional cultural icon, he would have alluded to him in just the same way.
I see that you used the same kind of bogus reasoning in the following paragraph. I won't go through that line by line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 12:09 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 1:19 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 23 of 109 (580663)
09-10-2010 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Just being real
09-10-2010 1:19 PM


Re: How did the intended audience understand it?
Just being real writes:
However I would disagree that Adam would have merely been a cultural icon that Jesus was referring to, without having something that demonstrates this in writing somewhere else in the scriptures at least once or twice.
I'm not sure why you would expect that in the scriptures. What we usually refer to as "the scriptures" are texts that have been selected to present a particular point of view favored by the selection committee. In Message 19, GDR quoted some text from Josephus, which suggests that the Adam and Eve story was seen as allegorical. I have heard from a number of Jewish people, raised in the Jewish traditions, that most see the story as allegorical.
I'm not a historian. I don't claim expert knowledge of what was the dominant view at that time. To be clear, I am not asserting that Jesus saw Adam and Eve as mere cultural icons. Rather, I am asserting that from what he said we cannot conclude that he did not see them that way. The scriptural evidence is far too scanty to reach any definite conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 1:19 PM Just being real 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