Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
42 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (6 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,628 Year: 18,664/19,786 Month: 1,084/1,705 Week: 336/518 Day: 12/88 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6258
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 76 of 109 (582015)
09-18-2010 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ringo
09-18-2010 3:54 PM


RE: Hebrew
Hi ringo,

ringo writes:

The Hebrew nâchâsh means "snake", probably an onamatapoeia for "hiss".

נהש means serpent.

Snake was added as an explanation of what a serpent was. So no נהש does not mean snake.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 3:54 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 09-18-2010 4:21 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 4:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31485
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 77 of 109 (582016)
09-18-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICANT
09-18-2010 4:11 PM


RE: Hebrew
Regardless there is no indication that Satan or Evil or Dinosaurs are involved in the Genesis 2&3 myth.


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

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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17413
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


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 yet responded

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

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 79 of 109 (582019)
09-18-2010 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
09-18-2010 4:22 PM


RE: Biblical Serpents
ringo writes:

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.

Biblically, serpent was a relative term, relative to context. The Genesis context in question is the pre-cursed serpent kind which had not yet been cursed to be close to or down to the ground belly crawlers.

Whatever you believe, this is what is clearly implied in the Genesis record which emphatically implies that the pre-cursed serpents were not belly crawlers.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 4:22 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by DC85, posted 09-18-2010 4:45 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 2803 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 responded

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

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 81 of 109 (582021)
09-18-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by bluescat48
09-18-2010 4:03 PM


RE: Talking Snakes
bluescat writes:

Dinos aren't serpents. Serpents are members of the suborder Serpentes, that is snakes.

Google dinosaur, serpent, and go figure.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by bluescat48, posted 09-18-2010 4:03 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 2803 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 responded

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

    
DC85
Member (Idle past 51 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 83 of 109 (582023)
09-18-2010 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Buzsaw
09-18-2010 4:35 PM


RE: Biblical Serpents
iblically, serpent was a relative term, relative to context. The Genesis context in question is the pre-cursed serpent kind which had not yet been cursed to be close to or down to the ground belly crawlers.

Whatever you believe, this is what is clearly implied in the Genesis record which emphatically implies that the pre-cursed serpents were not belly crawlers.

A Dinosaur isn't a snake with legs.... So your explanation still is absurd.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 09-18-2010 4:35 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17413
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


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 responded

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

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31485
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 85 of 109 (582027)
09-18-2010 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by hERICtic
09-18-2010 4:42 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
"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.

Yes, you have said that.

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.

Remember that the incident Jesus is using is NOT the fable that has Adam in it.

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.

I don't doubt that you believe it, but I don't see any support for that position. If you read the Talmud it certainly does not appear that the Jews considered the stories as factual.

But the main aspect I believe, is that the authors in the NT actually did believe it to be true.

Again, while that is possible I don't see any evidence that supports that position.

Even the passage you quoted is an example of taking something from an old story and recycling it to make a totally unrelated point.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by hERICtic, posted 09-18-2010 4:42 PM hERICtic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by hERICtic, posted 09-19-2010 10:11 AM jar has responded

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 2803 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 responded

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

    
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 2803 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 responded

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

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31485
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 88 of 109 (582047)
09-19-2010 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by hERICtic
09-19-2010 10:11 AM


allegory and allusion
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.

"IN the High and Far-Off Times the Elephant, O Best Beloved, had no trunk. He had only a blackish, bulgy nose, as big as a boot, that he could wriggle about from side to side; but he couldn't pick up things with it."

"Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. "

"And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. "

"ONCE upon a most early time was a Neolithic man. He was not a Jute or an Angle, or even a Dravidian, which he might well have been, Best Beloved, but never mind why. He was a Primitive, and he lived cavily in a Cave, and he wore very few clothes, and he couldn't read and he couldn't write and he didn't want to, and except when he was hungry he was quite happy."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is also common practice in the Talmudic discussions where scriptural support is often by quoting only a few words and without attribution. The other people in the discussion are expected to know the Torah.

In the passage from Matthew you mentioned it appears that the author is simply having Jesus use an allusion to the Genesis 1 creation story where God creates all of the animals, including humans, as male and female to then go on and describe a new creation, husband and wife.

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.

Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

Edited by jar, : fix subtitle spallin


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by hERICtic, posted 09-19-2010 10:11 AM hERICtic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by hERICtic, posted 09-19-2010 12:53 PM jar has responded

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 2803 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 responded

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

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17413
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


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 responded

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019