Adam not literal????

[Pastor Larry]

It's academic that the original source text of Genesis refers to Adam by a description (the man), not a name (Adam).

That's simply not true. First, the "original source text of Adam" presupposes evidence not in existence. You don't know what the "original source" said. You don't know even know what it was. No one does. Second, there is no solid exegetical way to determine which is which entirely, although I pointed out above the issue with the article, which, if you look at English translation seems to be taken the way that I take it.

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

No, that's not a fact.

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.

As you point out, that's a different word. We are talking about 'adam. The fact is that Jim wanted us to look at the lexicon, and so I pointed out that the lexicon identifies the word in question as a proper name, as well as several other things. You can't just appeal to the lexicon. That's too simplistic.

And you don't get to make up your own facts. The reality is that at places, Scripture treats "Adam" as a proper name, not a description.

 

[Johnv]

That's simply not true. First, the "original source text of Adam" presupposes evidence not in existence.

Huh? Publications of the scriptural source texts are readily available in many libraries. I own a few myself.

And you don't get to make up your own facts. The reality is that at places, Scripture treats "Adam" as a proper name, not a description.

Sorry, it's you who is in error. Scripture treats it as a proper name in some places, and not in others. In Genesis 1-3, it is not used as a proper name. The NIV, NASB, ASV, et al concur, unless you believe them to be factual errors as well.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Luke uses "adam" as being the literal and real father of Seth in Luke 3:38.
Paul uses "adam" when he describes him as the first man in 1 Corinthians 15.

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.

Which is the very foundation of those on the theological left. They believe in the Bible, but when it comes down to it they don't require any real belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. They engage, like the cults do in bait and switch. We'll bait you with the right words and then switch it over to mean what we want it to mean. Or as humpty dumpty said, "A word means exactly what I want it to mean. No more, and no less."

 

[Johnv]

Which is the very foundation of those on the theological left. They believe in the Bible, but when it comes down to it they don't require any real belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.

On the contrary. Scriptural inerrancy is the doctrinal position that scripture is in its original form without error or contradiction in content and context, something I adhere to as a matter of course. What you're doing is equating inerrancy with hyperliteralism. If we take all of scripture hyperliterally, it fails.

Here's a simple example (albeit extreme). Song of Solomon referrs to his lover as the most beautiful of all woman. That's not the literal truth. The truth is, my wife is the most beautiful of all woman, and no one better say otherwise.

Okay, seriously, though, when it comes to scripture, there's a simple rule of thumb: In essentials unity; in nonessentials, liberty, in all things, charity. This is consistent with the Baptist Distinctives. The hyperliteralness of Genesis 1-3 is a nonessential. Therefore, granting individual liberty on teh topic to others is not a liberal position, it's a very tried, true, and tested facet of conservative Baptist faith and practice.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Huh? Publications of the scriptural source texts are readily available in many libraries. I own a few myself.

You said "original source text." And that is most definitely not available. In fact, the copies we have available are more recent than the NT texts. I can assure you that you own no "original source text of Genesis." No one does.

Sorry, it's you who is in error. Scripture treats it as a proper name in some places, and not in others. In Genesis 1-3, it is not used as a proper name. The NIV, NASB, ASV, et al concur, unless you believe them to be factual errors as well.

Let's look shall we. Get out your concordance and search on "Adam" and see what the results are. Lo and behold, in Gen 2:10, 3:17 and 3:21, "Adam" is treated as a personal name. I explained above the reason for this. I notice you never interacted with that post (and probably for obvious reasons ... It disproves your whole theory). So as it turns out, you are in fact in error. The Bible does use "Adam" as a personal name in Genesis 2:10, 3:17, and 3:21 which shows that your statement that "In Genesis 1-3, it is not used as a proper name" is wrong.

As I pointed out, when it has the definite article (ha'adam), it is considered a generic title ("the man"). Without the definite article, it is treated as a personal name. That is consistent in Genesis 1-5.

 

[Jim1999]

I don't think I have tried to deceive anyone or changed meaning of words in the process. I have openly admitted I have been a theisitic evolutionist for more than 60 years; no undercover. Essentially my doctrines are as fundamental as anyone's.

On this point I differ with many here and I have openly said so. How is that deceptive? I am using the Hebrew language as a source and Jewish writings with their understanding of the text in question.

I admitted Gen 2 later verses, and other verses in scripture refer to Adam, as do so many refer to other things, including a town, and adam, the creation of humankind.

Sorry, if anyone things I am being deceptive. I have always maintained the inspiration of scripture, the verbal inerrancy of scripture in the original MSS.
I claim no inerrancy in copies.

I am not a theological liberal, do not embrace the views of Barth or Neo-orthodoxy, reformed in basic theology and a baptist by conviction.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Johnv]

As I pointed out, when it has the definite article (ha'adam), it is considered a generic title ("the man"). Without the definite article, it is treated as a personal name. That is consistent in Genesis 1-5.

I'm running REALLY short of time, and will try to pick this up later, but wanted to point out a problem with that. Gen 1:26 says “And God said, ‘let us make man [adam, with no ha before it] in our image …’” it is by no means a proper name here. That context gets caried on throughout the bulk of Gen 1-3. I'm not 100% sure, but I dont' believe that the Hebrew referrs to Adam as a proper name until Jos 3:16 (pulling that from bible college memory, so I'm' not 100% sure).

Anyhoo, it's been a fun discussion. Will pick it up later.

 

[Tom Bryant]

On the contrary. Scriptural inerrancy is the doctrinal position that scripture is in its original form without error or contradiction in content and context, something I adhere to as a matter of course. What you're doing is equating inerrancy with hyperliteralism. If we take all of scripture hyperliterally, it fails.

Here's a simple example (albeit extreme). Song of Solomon referrs to his lover as the most beautiful of all woman. That's not the literal truth. The truth is, my wife is the most beautiful of all woman, and no one better say otherwise.

Okay, seriously, though, when it comes to scripture, there's a simple rule of thumb: In essentials unity; in nonessentials, liberty, in all things, charity. This is consistent with the Baptist Distinctives. The hyperliteralness of Genesis 1-3 is a nonessential. Therefore, granting individual liberty on teh topic to others is not a liberal position, it's a very tried, true, and tested facet of conservative Baptist faith and practice.

You are the one calling my view of it as hyperliteral. I do not accept that I am involved in that. I am not a hyperliteralist. And no matter how beautiful your wife or mine is your example of SoS is extreme. but I understand your point

But when it comes to interpreting Scripture I have my own errant rule of thumb: When the plain sense of Scripture makes sense, seek no other sense.

I am very prepared to give liberty about non-essentials but when the Bible talks about Adam as a real man I wouldn't call that a non-essential. You and I would have very different views about non-essentials. I think your view would lead us leftward to the idea that all beliefs are listed under the freedom of conscience act and to not accept them is religious fascism. You probably think my view leads to an extreme fundamentalism roughly akin to to the taliban.

And both of us are probably wrong.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Gen 1:26 says “And God said, ‘let us make man [adam, with no ha before it] in our image …’” it is by no means a proper name here. That context gets caried on throughout the bulk of Gen 1-3. I'm not 100% sure, but I dont' believe that the Hebrew referrs to Adam as a proper name until Jos 3:16 (pulling that from bible college memory, so I'm' not 100% sure).

John, I gave three verses (2:20, 3:17, and 3:21) all in teh context of Gen 1-3 where "Adam" is used as a personal name, which is anarthrous in Hebrew. No one says (to my knowledge) that every use of Adam is a personal name. That would be silly. And no one denies that it is usually used for mankind. But it also used for a personal name, the ground, and a place name. I think Gen 2:20, 3:17, 3:21, 4:25, 5:1, 3, 4, 5 it is undoubtedly used as a personal name.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Gen 1:26 says “And God said, ‘let us make man [adam, with no ha before it] in our image …’” it is by no means a proper name here. That context gets caried on throughout the bulk of Gen 1-3. I'm not 100% sure, but I dont' believe that the Hebrew referrs to Adam as a proper name until Jos 3:16 (pulling that from bible college memory, so I'm' not 100% sure).

John, I gave three verses (2:20, 3:17, and 3:21) all in teh context of Gen 1-3 where "Adam" is used as a personal name, which is anarthrous in Hebrew. No one says (to my knowledge) that every use of Adam is a personal name. That would be silly. And no one denies that it is usually used for mankind. But it also used for a personal name, the ground, and a place name. I think Gen 2:20, 3:17, 3:21, 4:25, 5:1, 3, 4, 5 it is undoubtedly used as a personal name.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Gen 1:26 says “And God said, ‘let us make man [adam, with no ha before it] in our image …’” it is by no means a proper name here. That context gets caried on throughout the bulk of Gen 1-3. I'm not 100% sure, but I dont' believe that the Hebrew referrs to Adam as a proper name until Jos 3:16 (pulling that from bible college memory, so I'm' not 100% sure).

John, I gave three verses (2:20, 3:17, and 3:21) all in teh context of Gen 1-3 where "Adam" is used as a personal name, which is anarthrous in Hebrew. No one says (to my knowledge) that every use of Adam is a personal name. That would be silly. And no one denies that it is usually used for mankind. But it also used for a personal name, the ground, and a place name. I think Gen 2:20, 3:17, 3:21, 4:25, 5:1, 3, 4, 5 it is undoubtedly used as a personal name.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Gen 1:26 says “And God said, ‘let us make man [adam, with no ha before it] in our image …’” it is by no means a proper name here. That context gets caried on throughout the bulk of Gen 1-3. I'm not 100% sure, but I dont' believe that the Hebrew referrs to Adam as a proper name until Jos 3:16 (pulling that from bible college memory, so I'm' not 100% sure).

John, I gave three verses (2:20, 3:17, and 3:21) all in teh context of Gen 1-3 where "Adam" is used as a personal name, which is anarthrous in Hebrew. No one says (to my knowledge) that every use of Adam is a personal name. That would be silly. And no one denies that it is usually used for mankind. But it also used for a personal name, the ground, and a place name. I think Gen 2:20, 3:17, 3:21, 4:25, 5:1, 3, 4, 5 it is undoubtedly used as a personal name.

 

[Revmitchell]

Hath God said?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

So you're basically arguing that God made man in his image and called him mud or earth. Huh. There goes our self esteeme issues.

 

[Revmitchell]

So you're basically arguing that God made man in his image and called him mud or earth. Huh. There goes our self esteeme issues.

If you are worried about your self esteem issues go see Schuller he will get you on track.:laugh:

 

[Allan]

So you're basically arguing that God made man in his image and called him mud or earth. Huh. There goes our self esteeme issues.

PRAISE GOD!! :thumbs: God can call anything He creates, anything He likes. Names have meanings and it is fitting that the first name given to and for man reflects not only the absolute power of God in creating but also reflective of from whence man was created. Again - PRAISE GOD!

Here is a good one to remember when you have self esteem issues:

Psa 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we [are] dust.

Here is another good one for those needing some good self-esteem

Job 25:6 How much less man, [that is] a worm? and the son of man, [which is] a worm?

Only when we are empty of ourselves can we truly be filled with all of God and then, and only then, can we truly have worth. And that like joy is a state of being, where as self esteem is more like happiness which is completely dependant upon the circumstance you are presently in.

 

[Johnv]

John, I gave three verses (2:20, 3:17, and 3:21) all in teh context of Gen 1-3 where "Adam" is used as a personal name, which is anarthrous in Hebrew.

I need to clarify that I agree with you here. Gen 2:20 is somewhat ambiguous, and either "Adam" or "the man" could contextually apply. In Gen 3:17 and 21, it's a proper name. In Gen 1:26-27, Gen 2:5-18 and 22-25, Gen 3:12,21, and 24, it's "the man", and not a proper name.

No one says (to my knowledge) that every use of Adam is a personal name.

That's actually what Revmitchell is asserting, for the post part. That in verses where it's not a proper name, it's permitted to translate the verse as "Adam" instead of "the man", apparantly on the notion that they're interchangeable.

 

[Revmitchell]

That's actually what Revmitchell is asserting, for the post part. .

No that is what you personally chose to read into it.

 

[Me4Him]

So you're basically arguing that God made man in his image and called him mud or earth. Huh. There goes our self esteeme issues.

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Ge 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Yep, our name is "MUD". :laugh:

What occurred in the garden prefigures what was to come in the future,

Adam the name prefigured Adam the mankind made from dust and to return to dust.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

God walking in the garden seeking Adam prefigured God (Jesus) walking on the earth seeking to give a "new born again life" to the Adam's of this world which were lost by the "First Adam".

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

If we confess we're "Naked" (sinners) God will save, if we try to hid our sin, he won't.

Depending on the context, Adam can mean, man or mankind.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Ge 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Yep, our name is "MUD". :laugh:

What occurred in the garden prefigures what was to come in the future,

Adam the name prefigured Adam the mankind made from dust and to return to dust.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

God walking in the garden seeking Adam prefigured God (Jesus) walking on the earth seeking to give a "new born again life" to the Adam's of this world which were lost by the "First Adam".

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

If we confess we're "Naked" (sinners) God will save, if we try to hid our sin, he won't.

Depending on the context, Adam can mean, man or mankind.

Yes an thus he can be a representative or a type which makes more sense.