Was Adam really the first man, according to the Bible?

Post Reply New Topic

do you agree that adam in gen 1 is not or may not be Adam in gen 2 3 ?

how do you take a poem Literally?

I think we may have a semantic divergence how are you defining Literal?
-Jake

Good luck getting agreed definitions.

I suppose if "Mary Had a Little Lamb" is to be included as poem you can take it literally.

Most people who take the Books literally do not interpret "literally" literally. I am not sure it would be possible.

Generally "literal interpretation" is handfed Big Brother style.

I know, I know, but why continue with the Exegesis of a group that you have left?
unless that reading is what has given you permission to leave?

A. My group hold scripture to be inerrent.
(or as Mcalavera case seems to be to me scripture must be held to be inerrent )
B. my group reads scripture in the correct manner.
C. this reading leads to contradictions in the scripture.

therefore woohoo I don't have to go to temple anymore.

this problem is that A could still be true if B or C are not.
my view is if you don't wanna go to temple don't go.
you need a reason to believe something not a reason too not.
the burden of proof is on belief not unbelief.

-Jake


there

Since Lilith transformed into a hideous demon, what does that say about the beginnings of women's lib?

Anyway, Fair point about the rabbinic tradition.

The first man is not named in Genesis 1 but he is given a name in Genesis 2. Mythological gradualness.

A poem taken literally. Think of it like this:

Yahweh holding a mighty sword/bow (within a poetic context) literally means Yahweh with great divine power (or something like that).

The statement is poetic but the meaning (defined by the poetic context) is still taken literally not allegorically.

An allegorical interpretation would be God doesn't exist but the concept of God is so strong that it is like it is holding a mighty sword/bow. The poetic verse didn't suggest that God is fake but an allegorical interpretation can do so with ease without respect for the context.

Jake -

"I know, I know, but why continue with the Exegesis of a group that you have left?
unless that reading is what has given you permission to leave?"

Seek not logic in the branches of the Monkey Puzzle Tree.

this is why we have had trouble understanding each other.
allegory as I use it and as it is commonly used has no conotation of athiesm.

it is what you are calling "poetic context"

and when I use the word literal as in "I don't read anything literally" I (and most english speakers) mean

I take every thing with a grain of salt.
So is this the literal truth ? We agree with each other on fact could not see it because of definition?
-Jake

Regardless of definitions, my point is that you cannot just decide that Genesis 1 and 2 are to be taken poetically against what the context suggests.

The ancient Greeks may not have been as pious as you had expected, but those ancient Greek myths exist because they were originally taken to be factual explanations for various things within nature, regardless of what some skeptics in those days may have believed.

The same with the ancient Jews and the Genesis stories.

I don't think you know what "can" means.

here we go
3 possible literal readings

1.
gen one refers to the creation of mankind adam as a generic term.
gen 2 refers to the later creation of Adam the man so Adam is not the first man.

2.
gen one refers to the creation of mankind adam as a generic term.
gen 2 is allegorical or as you say poetic refering to mans relationship with God.

3.
adam in gen one refers to the man Adam
gen two is a retelling
(the one I assume you are using)

-Jake

Why stop with just 3 then? Keep going till you're out of interpretations.

there is a diference this could mean multiple things and this could mean anything.
there is no slippery slope.
-Jake

Where I come from, it's more than enough for a statement to have one literal intended meaning. Note the word in bold.

but is not one statement or one author (this you have conceded).

the author of gen 1 could have a different intended meaning than gen 2.
admit the possiblity of this or I will be forced to call you a ninny.
(actually I won't actually call you that because of my respect for the forum rules but I will think it )
I don't see proof that there is one way to read gen and it just happens to be the way that your
former sect read it.
-Jake

I break my rule for this important announcement.

IF that were true you would be from some planet inhabited by an alien species. For humans, as I have pointed out elsewhere, I will not explain unless specifically asked which as things stand is unlikely, it is commonplace to code - intentionally - two, three, or more meaning into any utterance.

You need not be embarassed, I have met humans who did not know this simple fact of human communication.

in the spirit of self disclosure I am a person that has a very hard time
figuring out subtext of verbal communications in realtime.
hence the relationships with agressive women. (pattern I have broken by the way)

so Phil what is your take does gen 1-3 unequivically demand a adam is the first man reading?

(hehe I stacked the deck by saying unequivically)

-Jake

Jake -

some fine day we should compare fruitless and frustrating patterns with women we have broken. The ones I have broken can be traced bact at least three generations on both sides my family.

But that is off target.

Had you NOT inserted "unequivocally", I should have answered thus and so, with no more than the alert scholar's standard dose of equivocation. But with that inserted, needs must:

If you are very lucky or isolated from bad influences you may not have heard of the Gap theory. Not God of the Gaps, please, God's gap.

This I have, for my sins, which are numerous enough, heard from a few sources.

It goes thus:

Genesis 1:1, br'šyt. God creates.

Genesis 1:2, thw wbhw - a lovely phrase.

So, says the theory, if God created it, it must have been full formed and hokey dokey, so what happened that we go tohu?

So, they figure, God created a pile of stuff [maybe including dinosaurs, certainly including humanoids, which - PLEASE do not examine the logic critically - is where all them Nephilim and stuff came from. Only the first creation, in the GAP beteween verse 1 and verse 2, did not work out so good, God wiped the slate and started over, the flood was erasing most of his second pass.

Okay.

I for one do not like the Gap and never shop there [wait for the laugh]. But the theory is around.

And even without it, there is enough leeway in syntax, for instance the use of the definite, that you can get past it.

I WOULD say that the most probable intent is that we should read here [despite the double account, but with two decalogues and boilerplate in Kings and Chronicles and by us four gospels, so what?] the message that the creator[s] of the narrative postulated a unique invention of Homo sapiens.

But unequivocal? They did not write / narrate defensively, never expecting to be the focus of higher and lower criticism.