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

Post Reply New Topic

I agree the purpose for each of Genesis 1 and 2 are different.

But that doesn't mean they aren't based on the same sort of theology.

If Adam is not the first man according to the Scriptures, then who is? Why is his name unknown?

I can admit the possibility that I may have a hidden ability to fly like a bird if you want. But it doesn't mean it's likely.

I agree the purpose for each of Genesis 1 and 2 are different.

But that doesn't mean they aren't based on the same sort of theology.

what if gen one was writen by a member of a different sect than gen 2 3.
like taking a the first chapter of a book writen by a calvinist and tacking it onto a Jehovahs witness tract. things like this happen all the time. the compiler not noticing the sublties

If Adam is not the first man according to the Scriptures, then who is? Why is his name unknown?

the author of gen one (and this is not speculation) did not think it was important enough to include. dine' myth is similar in talking in generalities (the holy people)

I can admit the possibility that I may have a hidden ability to fly like a bird if you want. But it doesn't mean it's likely.

hyperbole or smugness? I will give you the benifit of the doubt

-Jake

How does your point show that Adam is not the first man created according to Genesis 2?

Genesis 1 is just simply vague when it comes to the creation of man, but Genesis 2 is just another story that was added to elaborate on man's origins. What was the significance of Adam other than that he was the first man to be created by God?

Why say that Adam had specific sons like Cain, Abel and Seth if Genesis 2 Adam is just an allegory for mankind? Were they also allegories? At which point in Genesis (and the rest of the OT) do we stop with the allegories and why?

I don't know if I was being smug, but even if I was, what's your problem with that? I'm a very smart badass focker; I deserve to be smug every now and then.

I am arguing the possiblity of an alternate reading not defending one.
I am arguing that there is strangeness in the use of the word Adam.

about when does the narrative stop being allegorical.

How do you think the story was composed?
is a a real but elaborated history?
did the first author make it out of whole cloth?
was it a pious fraud ? -and thus intentional allegory-
was it impious fraud? -and thus un-intentional allegory-

I would say that Tanakh gets progressively -but not consistantly-
less mythic and more historical as you move from Adam to David.

and I think considering it the "old testament" is imposing a new layer of meaning
that can not possibly be intended by its authors.
-Jake

We're not going anywhere intellectually if you don't answer the important questions that I ask.

Again:

What was the significance of Adam other than that he was the first man to be created by God?

Why say that Adam had specific sons like Cain, Abel and Seth if Genesis 2 Adam is just an allegory for mankind? Were they also allegories?

I don't see any strangeness in the word "Adam" by the way.

People in the Scriptures were named stuff for specific reasons. Adam was named Adam because he represents man (and who better than the father of all humans?)

(1) are you are accusing me of intellectual obtusness?
You are a athiest who defends biblical inerrancy.
who rejects any reading that does not agree with modern Calvinism.

(2) the significance of adam? to a Jew, unless you get into kabala not much.
to a christian that requires orginal sin to defend Jesus as the messiah you tell me.

(3)
why say the little red hen had three chicks if she is just a symbol for hardwork and thrift?
why does Hank Rearden have a wife in that scream of a book?
why do the seven dwarfs have names?
why does ares have a child with aphrodite?
answer cuz it makes a better story.

(4) Adam is plural it has the root red I find this strange. (I can't help what you see)

-Jake

1.
I'm neither an atheist nor someone who defends biblical inerrancy. Just goes to show how you clearly have no idea where I'm coming from.

2.
Nice dodge. Why was Adam mentioned in a way as if he was the first to be created by God? Dodging is not an argument.

3.
Again, why not mention the name of the first man created by God if Adam is not the one? Wouldn't his story be interesting, too?

4.
Elohim is also plural. So?

1.I'm neither an atheist nor someone who defends biblical inerrancy. Just goes to show how you clearly have no idea where I'm coming from.

just going by your self description
actually my new theory of your mind is that you are an evangelical xtian troll [i]

2.Nice dodge. Why was Adam mentioned in a way as if he was the first to be created by God? Dodging is not an argument.

[i]either is begging the question. well for one he was not definitely mentioned in gen one. that author did not think it was important.

3.
Again, why not mention the name of the first man created by God if Adam is not the one? Wouldn't his story be interesting, too?

because the author of gen one did not care.4.
Elohim is also plural. So?

I have no problem with a panthiestic reading.
I think that it may be the right one.

So Adam in Genesis 2 was just a man among many created by God even though he's the only one mentioned in Genesis 2 (aside from Eve) and God's direct creation of him is described.

Sorry, that's just speculative interpretation to me that Genesis doesn't say Adam was the first man.

And you're a liberal Christian troll.

(1)
no, you willful miss-stater
I would be saying if you could get your head out of the sermon your preparing for Sunday service.
I am saying that gen 1 is generic gen 2 is specific.
I have said it about 5 times but I guess you were too busy getting saved and being all things to all men to read thoroughly.

-Jake

Jakob -

If he be an evangelical - even figuring in some of those I have seen - the heaven help us.

Is trollhood eveough to explain it all?

As for elohim, to the lingust baalim ashtaroth suggest we not go for a polytheistic substrate, though that could be argued - I have sometimes found the line very close.

The H, speaking of which, is intriguing. A number of the bottom tier base vocab Semitic non triliteral nouns do this (alternating with semivowel} root extension. But of course Semitic h is very strange - very restricted and often clearly NOT original, but stuck in some VERY central vocabulary.

The AfroAsiatic evidence cannot help me.

יח וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם-הַהוּא נְאֻם-יְהוָה, תִּקְרְאִי אִישִׁי; וְלֹא-תִקְרְאִי-לִי עוֹד, בַּעְלִי.
the idea is there.

The H in the Tetragrammaton is all things considered intriguing.

Your problem is you think all possible interpretations are equally valid.

In Genesis 1, no first man is defined or named. Fine.

In Genesis 2, Adam is defined by the context as the first man according to Genesis 2 and many other passages in the Scriptures.

So back to my original argument:

Aside from vague passages like Genesis 1, Adam is the first man according to the Bible.

(1) is this willful misreading?
I think there are 3 not infinite valid readings
so your question becomes not counting any verses preceding gen 2 it is Adam the first man?


Q: Was Adam really the first man, according to the Bible?
A: it ain't necessarily so. but traditionally yes

Ich æm elder then ich wes a wintre and a lore, I can not handle that level of persistence.

At least you are illustrating my thesis that in the final analysis communication is of limited use.