Adam not literal????

[Deacon]

Johnv! Where've you been?
It's been awhile since I've seen your name on the BB.
Hope you and the Mrs. are doing well.

Personally I think A+E were real people,

Although I respect those who might believe otherwise.

I don't think that arguing about it will prove anything to anyone
other than who's the better arguer at the time.

Rob

 

[Pastor Larry]

See the other examples I noted. One is pertinent, the other is not.

Pertinent is a different word. Your examples are irrelevant since none of them seem to be distinguishing between "literal" and "real." And that's what I am asking: What is the difference between literal and real? How can a person be real but not literal? What does that mean?

 

[preachinjesus]

my literal banks sure do appreciate it when I pay my real bills...

Maybe the point is obscure, well it is, and is better understood as general to specific. For some the Genesis account lacks specificity (I wholly disagree) but communicates the points generally and authentically.

Still the point is confusing at best.

 

[Johnv]

I've never heard anyone comment on the color of Jesus' robe so I am not sure where that comes in.

I'd link to all the posts on this board in tehpast where people argued over the definition of purple vs scarlett vs red. There is no shortage of those arguments here.

So again, what's the diff?

Doesn't matter if Adam and Eve were two people, two groups of people, two homo sapiens, two neanderthals, or two white people, two african people, etc. Scripture does not require the christian to adopt a hyperliteral view of Genesis 1. Unfortunately, many Christians make such a requirement upon other Christians. If that's a requirement, then we're speaking an untruth by referring to Adam as "Adam", because in the original language, he's never given a name (although Eve is). Adam is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew word "the man". So if anyone requires Adam and Eve to be literal, then stop referring to them as such, and start referring to them as "the man, and Chava".

 

[Pastor Larry]

Doesn't matter if Adam and Eve were two people, two groups of people, two homo sapiens, two neanderthals, or two white people, two african people, etc.

These are all the same except for "groups." And seeing them as groups of people makes no sense grammatically or theologically. So we can rule this out as a bad argument.

Furthermore, why can't "Adam" be a proper name? All over Scripture (and today) people have proper names that have other meanings, and for symbolic purposes. Consider Jesus himself who was named "JEsus" because "he will save his people from their sins." We don't say that's not a name because it has another meaning. So that's just a bad argument.

But back to the point, none of this explains the difference between "literal" and "real." So, in your mind, what is the difference between "literal" and "real"?

 

[Johnv]

You guys are arguing symantics, when this is a spiritual context issue. I'm my daughter's father in every real sense imaginable. However, I'm not hyperliterally her father, because I'm not the sperm donor. Adam and Eve need not have been two literal persons in order for the characters depicted in the Genesis 1-3 narrative to be real, or for the Genesis 1-3 narrative to be true. If someone doensn't understand that, they should take some time to meditate on it.

BTW, I gotta at least give you credit for acknowleging that Adam and Eve need not have been homo sapiens.

As for "Adam" being a proper name, it's not a matter of "can" or "can't". It's a matter of the fact that it wasn't. The person we call Adam wasn't given a proper name in scripture, and was simply referred to in Hebrew as "the man". I dont' object to referring to Adam as such, of course, my point was that biblical hyperliteralists (not you, necessarily) are often inconsistent in their application of hyperliteralism.

 

[Revmitchell]

You guys are arguing symantics, when this is a spiritual context issue. I'm my daughter's father in every real sense imaginable. However, I'm not hyperliterally her father, because I'm not the sperm donor. Adam and Eve need not have been two literal persons in order for the characters depicted in the Genesis 1-3 narrative to be real, or for the Genesis 1-3 narrative to be true. If someone doensn't understand that, they should take some time to meditate on it.

BTW, I gotta at least give you credit for acknowleging that Adam and Eve need not have been homo sapiens.

As for "Adam" being a proper name, it's not a matter of "can" or "can't". It's a matter of the fact that it wasn't. The person we call Adam wasn't given a proper name in scripture, and was simply referred to in Hebrew as "the man". I dont' object to referring to Adam as such, of course, my point was that biblical hyperliteralists (not you, necessarily) are often inconsistent in their application of hyperliteralism.

He was given the name Adam and the woman was given the name Eve. And those who use false characterizations like "hyper-literalist" do so because the do not want to accept what it means to understand scripture literally and usually comes from Hyper-liberals.

 

[Revmitchell]

my literal banks sure do appreciate it when I pay my real bills...

Maybe the point is obscure, well it is, and is better understood as general to specific. For some the Genesis account lacks specificity (I wholly disagree) but communicates the points generally and authentically.

Still the point is confusing at best.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Pastor Larry]

You guys are arguing symantics

It's "semantics" and you are the one who used two different words and won't explain the difference.

Being a father or a "sperm donor" is not anywhere near similar to the point here. That is similar to your attempts above that fell far short of explaining the difference. The question remains, How can someone be real but not literal? What does that mean?

Adam and Eve need not have been two literal persons in order for the characters depicted in the Genesis 1-3 narrative to be real, or for the Genesis 1-3 narrative to be true.

So the characters can be real but not literal? Again, what does that mean? If if the Gen 1-3 narrative is true, how can the people in it not be real? Or literal?

If someone doensn't understand that, they should take some time to meditate on it.

Why not just explain it? Perhaps it is you who doesn't understand it enough to explain it?

BTW, I gotta at least give you credit for acknowleging that Adam and Eve need not have been homo sapiens.

Not sure what that means.

As for "Adam" being a proper name, it's not a matter of "can" or "can't". It's a matter of the fact that it wasn't.

Based on what?

The person we call Adam wasn't given a proper name in scripture, and was simply referred to in Hebrew as "the man".

Based on what? "The man" is the word "Adam." Why isn't that is proper name? Is "Jesus" not a proper name because it also means "Savior"? John, you aren't making sense here.

I dont' object to referring to Adam as such, of course, my point was that biblical hyperliteralists (not you, necessarily) are often inconsistent in their application of hyperliteralism.

Again, that doesn't make sense. You seem to be the hyperliteral one here, insisting that Adam can't be named Adam because it also means something else.

So again, why not just explain what you mean?

 

[Johnv]

He was given the name Adam and the woman was given the name Eve.

Chapter? Verse? I'll prove you wrong rather easily.

It's "semantics" and you are the one who used two different words and won't explain the difference.

I made a simple comment in reference to the OP, and you're turnng it into a huge argument. Sheesh! There's no need. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. I'm not making a huge commentary out of scripture, I'm simply addressing the specific point of the OP. It's not scripturally required to view Adam and Eve as two literal people, because the intent of Gen 1-3 was not to record a literal account of two literal people.

Being a father or a "sperm donor" is not anywhere near similar to the point here.

"The man" is the word "Adam." Why isn't that is proper name? Is "Jesus" not a proper name because it also means "Savior"? John, you aren't making sense here.

You're a pastor, but you don't know that?
The word "adam" in Gen 1-3, was contextually used to refer to "the man", and not a proper name. "Jesus", otoh (actually "Yeshua"), was used in context and intent as a proper name.

You seem to be the hyperliteral one here, insisting that Adam can't be named Adam because it also means something else.

On the contrary, I'm NOT insisting that Adam can't be named Adam. My point was that, if someone is going to insist on hyperliteralism, they should be consistent.

 

[Revmitchell]

Chapter? Verse? I'll prove you wrong rather easily.

Genesis 3:9 and no you won't but I am interested in seeing your theological gymanastics.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Chapter? Verse? I'll prove you wrong rather easily.

With respect to Eve, the Bible says that Adam "called his wife's name Eve." So the Bible is clear that "Eve" is a name.

With respect to Adam, it is interesting, and probably instructive, that in some place the word "ha'adam" is used which is usually translated "the man." The prefix "ha" is the definite article. However, in other places, "ha" is not used, and in those it is usually translated "Adam" as a proper name. I haven't done an in depth study, but I think that names typically do not have the definite article. So that would indicate that "Adam" was a name, not just a title.

Furthermore, the NT uses it as a proper name. It doesn't say "ho anthropos" as you would expect if it understood Genesis to be talking about "the man," but "Adam."

 

[Jim1999]

I don't like using a lexicon for bible study, but at least get yours out and look up the word adam and tell me what it literally means in Hebrew. The Adam and adam have two different meanings. It is used in scripture some 500 times to mean mankind. He was distinguished from the animals (Gen 1:26) and was put in a garden to tend to it (Gen 2:8ff).

Adam was also a town north of Jericho. The first time God addresses Adam is Gen 2:19.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Johnv]

Genesis 3:9 and no you won't but I am interested in seeing your theological gymanastics.

Translated in the KJV as "And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?"

Looking at it in the Hebrew (pardon my spelling), is "Yhovah elohiym qara adam amar ay", which is "Yahweh God called out to the man and uttered 'Where are you?'"

"Adam" is not a proper name here. Later translations affirm this. The NASB, NIV, ASV, and ESV all translate the verse something like "But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"

In regards to "Eve", she is expressly given the name "Chava", Hebrew for "Giver of Life". We get the word "Eve" from an old German "Eva" word which means the same thing, but in English, it means something different. In short, "Eve" is a transliteration of a German word, which was a translation of "Chava".

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't like using a lexicon for bible study, but at least get yours out and look up the word adam and tell me what it literally means in Hebrew. The Adam and adam have two different meanings. It is used in scripture some 500 times to mean mankind. He was distinguished from the animals (Gen 1:26) and was put in a garden to tend to it (Gen 2:8ff).

Adam was also a town north of Jericho. The first time God addresses Adam is Gen 2:19.

Since you asked:

אָדָם, (only abs.; ca. 540 ×, 49 × in Qoh, Dahood Qoh. 34f): MHb. אדן (Kutscher Mish.Hb. 37), Ug. adm people (|| lim = לְאֹם Is 434), Ph. man אדם, pl. אדמם, DISO 4; Arm. only JArm.b; mankind; OSArb. slave > Arb. (ibn) ʾādam man, Tigr. ʾaddām (Wb. 384a) mankind; etym. unc., אָדֹם red (VG 2:48; Pedersen Berytus 6:72) or Arb. ʾadam skin (Bauer ZA 28:310f): mankind-man-Adam (→ II) (Koehler Theol. 113f; ThZ 1:77f; Pedersen Isr. 1-2, 61f, 110; Vriezen Par. 130ff); → אֱנוֹשׁ: —1. coll. mankind, people, a) construed with pl.: זָֽעֲקוּ הָא׳ Jr 472, כָּל־א׳ חָזוּ Jb 3625, b) usually construed with sg. Dt 83 1S 2529 Is 220; c) → בֵּן 4; בְּנֵי א׳ (38 ×) Dt 328 and בְּנֵי הָא׳ (9 ×, Da 1016 rd. בֶּן־א׳) Gn 115 individual men = males, like בְּנוֹת א׳ women Gn 62.4; בֶּן־א׳ individual man (like בֶּן־בָּקָר, → בֵּן 4) Ezk 21-47:6 (ca. 90 ×) and Nu 2319 Is 5112 562 Jr 4918.33 5040 5143 Ps 85 8018 1463 Jb 1621 (rd. וּבֵין בֶּן־) 256 358 Da 817 cj. 1016; בַּת א׳ not found; d) in cs. phrases: of man, human: לֵב א׳ Gn 821, יְדֵי א׳ Dt 428 (8 ×), דַּם א׳ Gn 96; כְּסִיל א׳ a fool of a man Pr 1520, פֶּרֶא א׳ Gn 1612 (GK §128 l); e) in apposition (GK §131b) א׳ בְּלִיַּעַל men who are corrupters = corruptively Pr 612, cf. א׳ רשׁעה 1QS 119; f) with negation: א׳ … לֹא Ps 10514 and א׳ לֹא Lv 1617 Jb 3221 nobody, אֵין א׳ no man 2C 636; —2. individual man (late and sporadic, in most cases the collective interpretation is possible): בְּאָ׳ (touch) somebody Lv 225 אָ׳ כִּי if somebody Lv 132 Nu 1914, הָאָ׳ לָאָ׳ one to the other Pr 2719; —3. Gn 1-5: 126-30 coll. mankind (Boehmer ZAW 34:31ff; in Gn 2f, trad. the first man like הָאִישׁ; coll. also in Gn 2f (cj. 220b and 317b and 21, rd. לָאָ׳ cf. 320) 51b.2 :: 425 51a.3-5, → III אָדָם —rd. אֲרָם Ju 187.28 Is 226 Zech 91 : Zolli VT 5:90f) and Ps 7611 (→ חֲמָת); 1K 511 ? rd. הָאֲדֹמִים :: Noth Könige 82, Dt 2019 rd. הֶאדם הֲ), 1S 1732 rd. אֲדֹנִי (Sept.); ? Is 434 rd. אֲדָמוֹת, 473 rd. אָמַר (conn. with גֹּאֲלֵנוּ verse 4), Jr 5114 ? rd. אֹיְבִים (Rudolph); Hos 67 rd. (III) בְּאָדָם, Zech 135 rd. (קִנְיָנִי) אֲדָמָה; Ps 174 rd. דָם (Gunkel), Pr 3014 rd. מֵאֲדָמָה.​

II אָדָם: Arb. ʾadam(at) skin, Arb. Tigr. (Wb. 383b) ʾadīm tanned skin, leather Tigr. ʾaddama tan, → I: leather Hos 114 (|| II אַהֲבָה) :: Wolff Hos. †​

III אָדָם: n.m., → I 2: Adam, for the first time (Nestle ZAW 30:72) Gn 425 and 51a.3-5, 1C 11 Sir 4916; —Gn 220b 317.21 rd. לָאדם (?). †​

IV אָדָם: = I אֲדָמָה (Dahood CBQ 25:123f): [Page 15] ground עֵין א׳ surface of the earth Zech 91 (cf. עֵין הָאָרֶץ Ex 105 Nu 225; alt. man looks upon Y.; cj. עָרֵי/עֵין אֲרָם), Jr 3220 Jb 3628 Pr 3014 (|| אֶרֶץ), also Gn 1612 Zech 135 ?. †​

V אָדָם: n.loc.; Sef 1 A 10, 35 ? (→ Dupont-S. 33f); T. ed-Dāmiye near the confluence of the river Jabbok (Abel 2:238; Glueck 4:329ff :: Simons Geog. §462): Jos 316 (rd. בְּאָ׳) and Hos 67 (rd. בְּאָ׳, = II אֲדָמָה 2, → Rudolph Hos. 141f). †​

As you can tell from the lexicon, "Adam" is a personal name (III), as well as "ground" (IV). Interesting, isn't it, that none of you guys are saying it means "the ground." But it's in the lexicon.

What that shows is that you know full well that lexicons give ranges of meaning, not precise meanings in a given context.
​

 

[Revmitchell]

Translated in the KJV as "And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?"

Looking at it in the Hebrew (pardon my spelling), is "Yhovah elohiym qara adam amar ay", which is "Yahweh God called out to the man and uttered 'Where are you?'"

"Adam" is not a proper name here. Later translations affirm this. The NASB, NIV, ASV, and ESV all translate the verse something like "But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"

In regards to "Eve", she is expressly given the name "Chava", Hebrew for "Giver of Life". We get the word "Eve" from an old German "Eva" word which means the same thing, but in English, it means something different. In short, "Eve" is a transliteration of a German word, which was a translation of "Chava".

God called out to "the man" also known as Adam. AS I have posted just recently names, all names have some meaning. My name Mark means "war like" Andrew(my middle name) means "manly". The fact that Adam was used or translated wither way does not provide evidence for a non literal interpretation. But the fact that God spoke to one singular individual does prove one singular individual. And the NT supports this. Rather interesting gymnastics though.

 

[Johnv]

I'm not arguing that names have meaning. It's academic that the original source text of Genesis refers to Adam by a description (the man), not a name (Adam). There's nothing wrong with us calling him Adam, but it's not necessary to insist Genesis referred to him as a proper name, when it did not. That's a fact, not gymnastics.


Interesting, isn't it, that none of you guys are saying it means "the ground."
Actually, see Gen 1:25 (...and everything that creeps on the ground...). It's translated "the ground" there, but it's "adamah" there. Getign back to the point of "the man", it's contextually referring to "the man" not a proper name". Nothing wrong with that, and it's nothing to get one's nose bent out of shape over.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm not arguing that names have meaning. It's academic that the original source text of Genesis refers to Adam by a description (the man), not a name (Adam). There's nothing wrong with us calling him Adam, but it's not necessary to insist Genesis referred to him as a proper name, when it did not. That's a fact, not gymnastics.

Genesis says God called out to him. Now you can hold to the name or the meaning either way God called out to Adam. Saying it was a proper name or the meaning of the proper name fails to take away from the literal meaning. Trying to advance that agenda is gymnastics.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Doesn't matter if Adam and Eve were two people, two groups of people, two homo sapiens, two neanderthals, or two white people, two african people, etc. Scripture does not require the christian to adopt a hyperliteral view of Genesis 1. Unfortunately, many Christians make such a requirement upon other Christians.

Thanks, JohnV... you've told me all that I need to know about your use of the words. I just always wonder why liberals don't just say what they mean rather than going thru verbal acrobatics.

 

[Johnv]

Genesis says God called out to him.

It doesn't say God called him a proper name.

Trying to advance that agenda is gymnastics.

On the contrary, trying to say that Adam was given a proper name in the texts of Gen 1-3 is gymnastics. It's as much gymnastics as KJVOists who try to claim "God save the King" is the sole proper translation of verses like 1 Samuel 10:24.

I just always wonder why liberals don't just say what they mean rather than going thru verbal acrobatics.

Ooooh, scary, the "L" word. Sorry, but I'm neither a theological liberal (not by any stretch), nor do I put much weight in to many to wield the word as an accusation. In fact, I believe Adam and Eve were two living, breathing people, just like you and me. However, I don't require other Christians to adhere to that same viewpoint as a matter of core scriptural doctrine. It's not a core issue of scriptural doctrine.