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

Post Reply New Topic

Couldn't Adam have just spread the knowledge thereby spreading guilt and its like.

So Adam went and told everyone what he did, and that made everyone guilty? That doesn't make any sense.

I was going by your quote of romans 5

Not Libel stories topic

There has always been speculation about the fact that there are two accounts of genesis. Much scholarly debate as well, and very interesting theories about why certain accounts of events were incorporated into the bible as we know it.

My point is that even atheists can study this document rationally, and reasonably. Theories can be rigorously debated and all the research done is quite fascinating. The amount of information would fill a huge library, though much is online now and easy to access.

"The Law" in this context refers to Torah, which was not given until the time of Moses, i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Without it, there is no means of holding those accountable for wrongdoing. It's pretty much just make it up as you go. So you have to go by what God commanded. In Eden, the Tree of Life represented, well, life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents the opposite: Death. Not physical death, but spiritual death. As a consequence, Adam was denied spiritual as well as physical life and, most likely, was able to gain God's grace through his faith and repentance. Yet he still faced the physical consequences for his actions--physical death through being denied the fruit of the Tree of Life. Cain murdered his brother, spilling his blood on the ground and thus incurring God's curse on the ground (the curse that was lifted in the days of Noah). Through grace, Cain's life was spared but brought a new commandment: Any man who sheds man's blood, by man will his blood be shed, a prohibition against murder. Noah was given the instructions to be fruitful and multiply, which is the first commandment, prohibition against murder (as with Cain), spread out over the earth (the law violated in Babylon). Noah was also given the dietary laws: Every living creature will be food for you, no meat with its lifeblood still in it. At that time, those laws applied universally, and there is no prohibition on mankind enacting further laws to govern himself. Any violation of conscience is a sin, regardless of whether it is written or not. And thus even though you may not commit the sin Adam committed, or the sin Cain, committed, or the sin Noah committed by getting drunk and exposing himself, sin still exists when one disobeys God by doing something he knows is wrong. By committing sin at all, one incurs the death penalty and is in need of God's grace.

Without law, human beings cannot hold each other responsible for their actions. It is written that even the Gentiles had the law written upon their hearts, even though the Law was not given to them, and even when they hadn't heard or learned the Law from the Israelites. We still have the Law, we are still guilty, and still in need of God's mercy.

The people who were unrelated to Adam would not have been conscious of a conscience, and thus could not have sinned.

"Forgive them, father. They know not what they do."

So, if you don't know what you're doing, you're off the hook as far as "sin" goes?

People with narcissistic personality disorders have no conscience and no empathy. Does that make them without sin?

[quote="Nambo"]Why is it, that whenever people on this forum want to talk with each other about the Bible, half the threads are asinine comments telling us the Bible isnt true or that there never was a flood etc, if the Bibles of no interest to you all, why keep interupting our conversations?
Do you feel threatened by it?
Do you think if you say "the Bibles not true" we are going to say, "oh, I never realsied that, thank you for telling me" and stop beliving it?
Its the same hand full of people on every thread, dont you have your own interests you can talk about amongst yourselves?[/quote

Its not about "whether you're interested in the bible" or not.
Its whether you take it litererally or not.
Many are fascinated by the meanings of Greek mythology but you dont hear them worrying about the mixed species genome of the minotaur as if the minotaur actually lived- or worrying about the aerodynamics of pegasus.

When you hear two people debating about who would win "if the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy got into a fight" you cant resist telling the pair to "snap out of it"- and- yes one would expect such a pair to snap out of it and realize how rediculous they sound.

So - snap out of it!

The Bible not only lacks external logic ( ie violates modern science), but this very thread demonstrates how it also lacks INTERNAL llogic ( doesnt even square with itsself).

That doesnt mean you cant discuss at as a literary work like the Aneid or like Othello, or even go beyond that and build your faith on the book, but the fact that something as basic as" who the first man was" is so ambiguous shows that even the Bible's ancient authors never intended the Bible to be taken litereally.

You're assuming this thread is an authoritative commentary on the Bible. We're not discussing the Bible as whole, but just the first two chapters.

The thing is Adam is the first named human being and chapter 2 deals specifically with how Adam was formed out of the dust of the ground, implying a special creation for some divine purpose. I personally don't see why it's relevant whether Adam was THE first human created or if he was rather the Chief Executive of Operations on the top floor at the 1 Eden Plaza campus, just one room down from THE Chief Executive. There are NT references that indicated the former rather than the latter, but it's also possible to interpret them as Adam being a special liaison, a "Speaker of the House" of sorts.

It's an interesting discussion, but I don't see the point of having a heated debate about it. Regardless of what the truth is, it doesn't mean the Bible has to be taken less literally. My experience has been that people who really quibble over minutia either do so to support cult or sectarian views OR are just trying to make a weak argument against Biblical inerrancy.

Personally, I enjoy these discussions because I find them fascinating. Having a thorough knowledge of the Bible is a good thing.

No. the jews ripped off the sumerians, They didnt come up with that story, the flood story, the cain and able story or any of those early myths.

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/SumerianMyth.htm

The Hebrews made a moral tale out of it.

Some stories are just too good not to filch.

ruveyn

hahaha. you are so right,

So the bible has to be taken absolutely litereally but you're free to interpret it anyway you want.

And its vitally important to take it litereally but it doesnt matter if you take it litereally becaue you can read into it whole scenarios that arent there and twist it around anyway you want.

And the only folks who actually care about the details in the Bible are the ones trying to prove its errency.
If you believe in the INerrency of the Bible you dont care about the details.

So in essense you're saying that people who take the Bible litereally dont take it litereally.
Kinda like Max Factor who once said "people who are serious about fashion dont take it serriously."

Last edited by naturalplastic on 18 Jan 2011, 11:47 am, edited 2 times in total.

If you believe the biblical account of Adam then you know he was the first human created. If you don't believe the biblical account, then this turns into an exercise in philosophy that's pointless and leads no where. (Colossians 2:8; 1 Cothinthians 3:19) You may ask "well I need proof" (2 Corinthians 5:7) to which I would respond, "I guess you'll have to take the bible's account on faith." (2 Thessalonians 3:2)

Nevertheless, since "all scripture is inspired of God" (2 Timothy 3:16) we can use the bible to answer biblical questions.

In Luke 3:38 it reads: "[son] of E′nosh, [son] of Seth, [son] of Adam, [son] of God."

1 Chronicles 1:1 reads: "Adam, Seth, E′nosh,"

Romans 5:12 reads: "That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned" That "one man" is, of course, referring to Adam. (Genesis 2:17; 3:6; Isaiah 43:27)

Romans 5:14 reads: "Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come."

1 Corinthians 15:45 reads: "It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul." (Paul is referring to Genesis 2:7)

1 Timothy 2:13 reads: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

Jude verse 14 reads: "Yes, the seventh one [in line] from Adam, E′noch,"

Jesus’ disciples believed the Genesis account of creation. For example, Luke’s Gospel account traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam. (Luke 3:23-38) If Adam were a fictional character, at what point would this genealogical list have turned from fact to myth? If the rootstock of this family tree were mythological, how firm would that have made Jesus’ claim that he was the Messiah, born in the line of David? (Matthew 1:1) The Gospel writer Luke said that he had “traced all things from the start with accuracy.” Clearly, he believed the creation account in Genesis.—Luke 1:3.

I believe the bible's account of creation. I also believe that Adam was not only a real person but he was the first human created directly by God.

Last edited by kxmode on 17 Jan 2011, 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you read the above discussion, it seems that Adam was not the first human created--only one human created specifically to take care of the Garden of Eden, and through whom sin entered the world. By virtue of being Noah's descendents, we are also Adam's descendents (who was among Noah's ancestors), and also inherit Adam's sin.

The apostle Paul’s faith in Jesus was linked to Paul’s trust in the Genesis account. He wrote: “Since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:21, 22) If Adam were not literally the forefather of all mankind, the one through whom “sin entered into the world and death through sin,” why would Jesus have needed to die to undo the effects of inherited sin?—Romans 5:12; 6:23.

To undermine belief in the creation account in Genesis is to undermine the very foundations of the Christian faith. This can only give birth to a weak faith that is prone to being “tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching.”—Ephesians 4:14.

Well, sure - if your faith is as weak as Paul's (I think he was haunted by the fear that one day he would find out that he really was still Saul of Tarsus, and all his adventures had been a dream).