Adam not literal????

[Thinkingstuff]

Absolutely not. While the Summerian and Ugaritic texts, not to mention the Enuma elish and Nag Hammadi can help inform what we are reading they bear no interpretative framework that illumanites the text for the follower of Christ.

We can learn alot about the context but when speaking directly to the use of particular language, like hapaxlegomena, but there are limits.

The references to Adam and Eve are very specific in Genesis 2-3. The use of the definite article is, imho, so clear that we can't squabble.

What is interesting is that it is presumed by the writer that Adam and Eve had personhood and literality (or historicity) while in the garden...but no unique named identity. It isn't until they are pushed out of the Garden that they assume names by which we know them today. That said the text is clear.

So again, how do those who suggest Adam and Eve were less than literal, historical persons deal with the textual representation in the Hebrew.

You're correct in saying that they Enuma Elish, Atra hasis, and the rest provide a cultural context for when the book of Genesis is writen. Nag Hammurabi would and should be compared against the NT text Though I agree that the Egyptian find is inaccurate at best.

I disagree that they do not give us insite into what genesis is speaking about. Or the cultural understanding of issues. I agree a better cultural understanding of Genesis will not affect issues of theology with regard to Jesus but isn't that the point of this thread?

And as yet no one suggested that Adam and Eve did not exist but that they were representative. So when reading Henry the V by Shakespear you see he refers to his brother France. Specifically meaning the French King. Are they brothers? No. They are both royalty. Does Henry mean just the king or the nation? He means both. this is how cultural understanding works. If we took this same work of literature and assume Henry is speaking about just one man who is his brother our exeget would be strange.

 

[annsni]

Thinkingstuff - How did mankind - all of those who lived in the beginning (I'm guessing you think that there was not one "Adam" but many adams), life 930 years? Was that the general lifespan? Or was it addressed regarding a specific person.

Going to Romans 5, how many men did salvation come through? All of mankind now has access to salvation because of how many men? We know that salvation came through one man - the man Jesus Christ. Salvation didn't come through a whole group of people called "Jesus" but one man. Now, the passage compares the two - just as sin entered the world through one man, salvation entered through one man. How can you say that Jesus is one man but Adam is not? It makes no sense. It is not at all consistent with the text, is it?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff - How did mankind - all of those who lived in the beginning (I'm guessing you think that there was not one "Adam" but many adams), life 930 years? Was that the general lifespan? Or was it addressed regarding a specific person.

Going to Romans 5, how many men did salvation come through? All of mankind now has access to salvation because of how many men? We know that salvation came through one man - the man Jesus Christ. Salvation didn't come through a whole group of people called "Jesus" but one man. Now, the passage compares the two - just as sin entered the world through one man, salvation entered through one man. How can you say that Jesus is one man but Adam is not? It makes no sense. It is not at all consistent with the text, is it?

I'm not being facecious here but let me ask you this: taking your argument for Jesus lets turn the tables. Sin came into the world through Adam and thus to his offspring. One man. And according to Romans Salvation comes to world through one man Jesus is it safe to assume this applies to Jesus offsrping? I would think not.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't think you understand me when I say literary type. Ie a modern novel or autobiography can be compared to similar types of literature writen in the same period (Ie a novel against a novel and an autobiography against an autobiography). But its hardly comparable to read a modern autobiography and one writen by virgil if you get my meaning. Context and word use and all sorts of "norms" would be misconstued if you did.

I fully understand that. But it doesn't help. You can't win the argument by appealing to a type of literature and thereby explaining away what the text says. Appealing to ancient literature doesn't change the fact of what Scripture says. That is a convenient ruse by someone to deny what Scripture says because they have ulterior motives for doing so.

 

[Tom Bryant]

I'm not being facecious here but let me ask you this: taking your argument for Jesus lets turn the tables. Sin came into the world through Adam and thus to his offspring. One man. And according to Romans Salvation comes to world through one man Jesus is it safe to assume this applies to Jesus offsrping? I would think not.

Yes, I would think this applies to Jesus' offspring. We become children of God through faith in Him.

 

[Revmitchell]

I fully understand that. But it doesn't help. You can't win the argument by appealing to a type of literature and thereby explaining away what the text says. Appealing to ancient literature doesn't change the fact of what Scripture says. That is a convenient ruse by someone to deny what Scripture says because they have ulterior motives for doing so.

That's right................

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, I would think this applies to Jesus' offspring. We become children of God through faith in Him.

By faith yes. Not by physical birth. Which is what was implied. So since its by faith in one man Jesus Christ, why could not Adam be representative?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I fully understand that. But it doesn't help. You can't win the argument by appealing to a type of literature and thereby explaining away what the text says. Appealing to ancient literature doesn't change the fact of what Scripture says. That is a convenient ruse by someone to deny what Scripture says because they have ulterior motives for doing so.

I'm not denying what scripture says just like I would deny what Virgil said. I'm just arguing the understanding of what is said maybe different than how it is generally interpreted by a simple reading. Just like Virgil may mean something different than how that statement is viewed today.

 

[JohnDB]

By faith yes. Not by physical birth. Which is what was implied. So since its by faith in one man Jesus Christ, why could not Adam be representative?

That would be going beyond what is written. Adam was the father of many children and instrumental in the lineage of Noah...as was recorded by Moses.

So...Adam was a single man...and so was Noah...and so was Abraham and Moses and David and.....

 

[annsni]

I'm not being facecious here but let me ask you this: taking your argument for Jesus lets turn the tables. Sin came into the world through Adam and thus to his offspring. One man. And according to Romans Salvation comes to world through one man Jesus is it safe to assume this applies to Jesus offsrping? I would think not.

Just as Tom said, all of God's children are given the blessing of life.

By faith yes. Not by physical birth. Which is what was implied. So since its by faith in one man Jesus Christ, why could not Adam be representative?

Not by physical birth but through adoption. Adam absolutely is representative in the same exact way Jesus is representative. Adam died giving man death. Jesus dies to give man life. But you can't say that "Adam" is representative of what was actually a bunch of people if "Jesus" is not actually a representation of a bunch of people who died to pay for sin. 1=1 not 1000=1. It's just not supported by the passage. ONE man=ONE man

 

[Revmitchell]

By faith yes. Not by physical birth. Which is what was implied. So since its by faith in one man Jesus Christ, why could not Adam be representative?

First faith is not symbolic but an actual event, occurrence, or change.

Second Having faith in Christ in no way leads to Adam being symbolic. Mary Lou Retton could not do the gymnastics you are trying to pull off.

 

[Shortandy]

I thought proper exegete of anything would not include just the text with in itself but in the context in which it was writen. For instance If I'm Telly Savalas and call someone "baby" its a different connotation than if I'm a mother and am speaking to my "baby". It sometimes can be seen in the text as in the context of the whole but not always. Which is my point. You have to read the NT from a 1 Century perpective for a whole exegete. Not from a modern context. Many things won't make sense then.

I thought that was proper exegesis as well so what in the text of gen 1 or 2 would cause you to think a plural humanity not two people?

 

[Shortandy]

I fully understand that. But it doesn't help. You can't win the argument by appealing to a type of literature and thereby explaining away what the text says. Appealing to ancient literature doesn't change the fact of what Scripture says. That is a convenient ruse by someone to deny what Scripture says because they have ulterior motives for doing so.

I have to agree with our moderator on this one. Not that I am saying anyone who disagrees with me has alterior motives. But in light of Romans five Adam being one man seems to be what scripture teaches.

But I don't want to just say something and not explain myself. So lets look at the text. If "adam" in the romans 5 means humanity then the passage makes no sense...it would be very redundant. How does "one man" not mean one?

Romans 5:12 is a reference back to the fall in the garden. What happened there? Did Eve (a non-literal representative of all woman) eat the forbidden fruit and then give it Adam(a non-lieteral representative of men) causing sin to enter the world? This hardly seems like the case.

I also have to ask a question about translation here. Every time the word "adam" (all humanity) is used the english translators use the word man. So simply based on translation it would appear that those who translate our english bibles think that Adam was a singular person as well for they use the name Adam in spots that have a singular conotation and the word man when it is plural. How does this fit into ones view?

 

[Jim1999]

The concept of an adam and Adam in Jewish writings is not a modern concept as some here suggest. This dates back to around the time of Jesus:

around the time of Christ, explain the name Adam as a notaricon composed of the initials of the four directions; anatole (east), dusis (west), arktos (north), and mesembria (south). In the 2nd century, Rabbi Yohanan used the Greek technique of notarichon to explain the name אָדָם as the initials of the words afer, dam, and marah, being dust, blood, and gall.
According to the Torah (Genesis 2:7), Adam was formed from "dust from the earth"; in the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 38b) of the first centuries of the Christian era he is, more specifically, described as having initially been a golem kneaded from mud.

Even in ancient times, the presence of two distinct accounts of the creation of the first man (or couple) was noted.

The first account says male and female [God] created them, implying simultaneous creation, whereas the second account states that God created Eve subsequent to the creation of Adam

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Tom Bryant]

The first account says male and female [God] created them, implying simultaneous creation, whereas the second account states that God created Eve subsequent to the creation of Adam

So are you saying that they are contradictory, Jim?

 

[Marcia]

Because of the poetic nature of the Torah and because of the many metaphors and metaphoric manner in which the construction of the Hebrew language is many people get confused as to the oriinal intent of the Bible.

There is poetry in the Torah but the whole of the Torah is not poetic in genre. It is predominately narrative.

 

[Jim1999]

Tom, it would appear so, wouldn't it. Showing conflict of understanding even back then, and from people who fully understood Hebrew language.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Marcia]

The concept of an adam and Adam in Jewish writings is not a modern concept as some here suggest. This dates back to around the time of Jesus:

around the time of Christ, explain the name Adam as a notaricon composed of the initials of the four directions; anatole (east), dusis (west), arktos (north), and mesembria (south). In the 2nd century, Rabbi Yohanan used the Greek technique of notarichon to explain the name אָדָם as the initials of the words afer, dam, and marah, being dust, blood, and gall.
According to the Torah (Genesis 2:7), Adam was formed from "dust from the earth"; in the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 38b) of the first centuries of the Christian era he is, more specifically, described as having initially been a golem kneaded from mud.

Even in ancient times, the presence of two distinct accounts of the creation of the first man (or couple) was noted.

The first account says male and female [God] created them, implying simultaneous creation, whereas the second account states that God created Eve subsequent to the creation of Adam

Cheers,

Jim

Gen 1 and 2 are the same account from different viewpoints. This is a feature of Hebrew writing. When it says "male and female God created them" it does not mean they were created at the same time, just that God created both male and female. We know they were not created at the same time from the account in Gen. 2.

Gen. 1 gives an overall account; Gen. 2 focuses on the creation of man and woman.

 

[Tom Bryant]

So which one is correct? Do you believe they are contradictory? "appears so" sounds so "well, I don't know" when you're usually very plain spoken (and I mean that as a compliment)

If they are contradictory (and I don't think they are. I think Marcia is correct in what she says about the differences in chapter 1 and 2) you would have thot that as smart a man as Moses was he would have said, "Wait... we're putting this book together and the 1st chapter contradicts the 2nd chapter? Let change one or the other."

 

[Jim1999]

I was just pointing out a Jewish understanding, and if they could differ, and they speak Hebrew fluently, why can't we have different views?

I believe Chapter one is using the Hebrew term adam, meaning generic, whilst Chapter two has Adam named. As to what it means, I am not about to say.

So many want to refer to the originals, and even use Lexicons, many incorrectly, to prove a point. So, I am using the Hebrew to prove a point of translation, I never doubted Adam and Eve, original sin and universal death. The first chapter of Genesis reads differently. That is all.

Cheers,

Jim