Was Adam a Real Person?

One thing we must remember. Jesus Christ put His stamp of approval on the first chapters of Genesis. In Matthew 19:5 Jesus Christ said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?, a direct quote of Genesis 2:24. Jesus Christ also said [Matthew 24:37, 38]: But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark.

If the first eleven chapters of Genesis were taken literally by my Savior they are good enough for me.

 

TOUCHE' !!!!

 

Personally, I believe that my Savior was the Son of God and that He therefore knew better than to take them literally (and there is no evidence that He did take the literally). And if He knew better than to take them literally, that is good enough for me!

 

None taken. Apocalyptic is “revealed” material. It can be past, present, or future. The revelation given to Daniel has present events and, depending upon how you interpret the book, past or future events. The Apocalypse of John has present, future and past events. Chapter 12:5 speaks of the birth of the male Christ child who is to rule all nations – that is a past event at the time of the book’s composition. Chapter 17 explains that the beast John saw was and is not and is about to come. These are just a few suitable examples of how an apocalypse can deal with the past.

Apocalyptic does not always refer to cataclysmic events. There are more non-cataclysmic apocalypses in the Bible than cataclysmic. But if one looks at the flood story as apocalyptic then you can’t get too much more cataclysmic that that.

I looked up some basic literary characteristics of apocalyptic literature. The following seems to fit the regular pattern.

1) In all apocalypses there is a disclosure situation (the creation of man and his fall)
2) Dramatic and even bizarre symbolism and fantasy are used extensively (man and animals being created from the ground, the woman being made from a rib, a talking animal, a seraphim)
3) Apocalyptic writings were placed in a particular written structure and formed carefully from the beginning (the use of word-play, puns, the chiasm of the fall and the subsequent punishments)
4) Determinism and Pessimism (increased birth pains, struggle between man and serpent (evil), toiling on a ground of thorns till the day the man dies and returns to the dust from which he came)
5) Dualism (serpent vs seed, tree of life vs tree of knowledge of good and evil)

But here are some characteristic that do not fit.

1) Pseudonymity (the text does not give its author)

2) Future orientation (many apocalypses do reveal the future, or claim to)

3) Ethical Passivity (Typically in apocalypses, instead of the righteous remnant being rebuked for their failure, they were consoled in their undeserved suffering and told that they were living in the last days. They were not to blame their immediate plight on their unfaithfulness but on the overwhelming evil of the world. In Genesis man is clearly to blame.)

4) Determinism and Pessimism (there is some optimism in the sense that God covers the shame of man and proclaims the eventual demise of the serpent)

But you raise a good point. The story of Genesis 3 is about God dealing with evil, i.e., sin. God prophesizes that the seed of the woman will crush the serpent, i.e., evil or sin. God covers the shame of the man and the woman with garments made from the skin of a animal. God is covering the shame/guilt of man by the sacrifice of an animal.

I have no problem with these issues either.

The question I was responding to and which I quoted was “How can a real person be in an allegory?” And I explained how this was possible. As I have previously stated, I do not believe Genesis 1-11 is an allegory. But if I were to compare Genesis 1-3 and Galatians 4 I would say that both use non-literal language to make a theological truth.

Well, the question of whether Adam was a real person or a symbolic representation of man is still unresolved but the subject of this discussion. But whether “it is not logical or consistent with the rest of scripture to have real persons in a narrative account of the past that is not historically true” … I have already mentioned Solomon in Ecclesiastes and Jude’s use of the fictional story of the figure of Enoch in Jude 14-15. Jude also uses a fictional account of the figure of Moses from the pseudo-apocryphal work, “The Assumption of Moses” in Jude 9. The author of Hebrews uses the anti-canonical and fictional Jewish legend that grew up around the real person of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7. This latter example is interesting. The author of Hebrews restates the fictional legend that Melchizedek had no father, mother, genealogy, and had no beginning or end of life (Hebrews 7:3). Now this is not true of Melchizedek and the author of Hebrews knew it, but the author uses this story of the priest-king of Salem to explain Christ. He is a priest-king who has not beginning or ending, being eternal. Yes, a Biblical author will employ fictional stories to make a true and non-fictional point.

With reference to Genesis 1-11 and the Holy Spirit inspiring the author of the account, I do not think that “God clearly gives the account” as “historically” true in the sense of its “literalness”. I think the story is true, but I do not think it is “historical” in the sense of “literal” like we would read in a historical text book.

I do not think that Christ’s intention in that verse is to state the literalness of the verse. I think that the Saviour can reference a symbolic, non-historical, non-literal story to make a non-symbolic, historical, literal theological point, especially if the story is from the Scriptures.

I think one problem is that those of you hold to a literal view of Genesis 1-11 account cannot fathom that a text in the Bible can be symbolic, non-historical, non-literal but still be true. Those of us who do not hold to a historical and literal view of Genesis 1-11 can do so and still believe the story to be true and God-breathed.

 

The more I read about creation science the more sense it makes.
The more I read about the theory of evolution the less sense it makes.The mathematics of stastical probability makes evolution impossible.The evolutionist thinks this all occurred in several(300 to 3)billion years. I suggest you could give evolution 300 trillion billion million years and a pile of junk would still be a pile of junk.Time is thier great creator.
At what point in time did man stop being a creature and start being a man? At what point in time did man get a spirit and a soul.
If you have'nt read "Scientific Creationism" by Henry Morris it could give you a look at why we Creationist who Believe in a literal 6 day creation account as given by God to Moses in Gen.1:1-11. Another good book is "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science" also by Morris. What is particularly intersting about both of these books is not only what they have to say but their bibliographies( good place to look for new books to read).
So yes I believe the Bible just like it says literally. I guess I'm just a mental midget.

 

The whole basis for Christ's crucifixion is to give man the capability to live eternally with Him, something that would not be possible otherwise, due to the sin of Adam.

To reject the literalness of Adam and his folly, is to reject the purpose of the cross.

This is satan's aim, but he MUST start with something other than the obvious because most Christians would spot the evil intent immediately. So he starts with "Did God REALLY mean six days--" "Did God REALLY mean Adam was the FIRST humanoid--", "Did God REALLY mean DEATH---" etc, etc ad infinitum.

If he (satan) can get you to question God on some "minute" points, won't be long before you're questioning Him on the basics, & it's all downhill from there.

As I've said so many times before, I'll take the Word of God as written, over man's speculation ANYDAY!!!!!!

 

I never said he was just a symbol. Don't put words in my mouth, please. I simply noted that in the Hebrew, Adam isn't given a proper name in Genesis.

No, in the source text Hebrew, he is not. All references to Adam in Genesis are transliterations of the word adam which means "the man" or "the human".

Adam is not referred to as a proper name until Jos 3:16 and 1 Chr 1:1. All other instances in the OT are references to "the man" or "the human".

Yes, I know that. I wasn't disputing that. I was simply making an observation abut Adam in Genesis. Don't overanalyze my comments, please.

It's interesting that the first woman is given a proper name before the first man. Also of interest is that, while Adam's name (in Hebrew, adam) means "the man" or "the human", Eve's name (in Hebrew, Chavva) means "giver of life". This makes much more sese when Genesis says she was "the mother of all living".

 

But I though that, with God, all things are possible. Regardless of whether the everything was created in 6 literal days, in billions of years, or anything in beteen, God is creator, and He created. Regardless of whether one adheres to YEC literalism, an OEC model, or a creation over billions of years, it's ridiculous for any Christian to say that "it's impossible for God to have done it" a certain way.

 

I have no problem with Christians believing in “creationism”, 6 days of creation of a young earth, and the literalness of Genesis 1-11. I disagree, but I have no problem with others believing thus. I do not think believing in such things hampers one’s faith or changes the message of Jesus Christ. Whether or not we interpret the first chapters of Genesis as literal or not the meaning, the message, the truth does not change. My only problem is when we begin to break fellowship with those who differ on such issues. That is not happening at BB and I praise God for it. But it does happen elsewhere in Christendom, especially in some Baptist schools. This summer I was in Edinburgh, Scotland and was standing atop a mountain with a fantastic view. I looked at how the valley and the mountains had been carved by God over millions of years and was struck with wonder. Unfortunately, I later made some joke about the young-earth theory of creation and another person mentioned that he believed in it. I quickly apologized for my joke and lack of sensitivity and this person was most gracious. So now I try to watch myself when I speak on these issues. Regardless, as long as we get the meaning of Genesis 1-11 accurately, the historical details can be left up to God.

Well, I have already given the examples in Revelation. Many of the visions of the latter half of the book of Daniel are set in the past.

“Apocalyptic” is a type of literature. It “reveals” to the reader what is hidden. This can be past (God’s hand in moving ancient Middle East history in Daniel), present (the struggle between the angel, Michael, and the prince of Persia in Daniel), and future (the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel). These are just a few examples.

A good overview for and understanding of apocalyptic literature is Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart’s book, “How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth”. This is a basic hermeneutical book whose chapter on the book of Revelation gives a brief but concise overview of what apocalyptic literature is. I think most good commentaries on Revelation, Daniel, Zechariah, and Ezekiel will give a good summary of the this type of literature. [Side note: isn’t it amazing that the Jews invented two types of literature, apocalyptic and gospel!?]

I am surprised that you did not include in the above quote this section which was in the middle of the quote.

“Many parts of the Bible contain elements of apocalyptic writing. Sometimes the visions God gives to people have to be interpreted by those inspired by God, as Joseph does in
Genesis 40;41. When the king of Egypt says that Joseph can interpret dreams, Joseph replies “I can’t do it myself, but God can give a good meaning to your dreams” (Gen 41:16). To help the people of Jerusalem, the Lord gives Zechariah eight symbolic visions (Zech 1–6).”

I had not thought of it before but even the narrative sections of Genesis contain apocalyptic writings. I recently read where the author of Daniel was heavily influenced by the Joseph narratives. I should have made this connection.

I already posted some similarities and differences between Genesis 1-11 and the general apocalyptic formats. Let it be known that Revelation does not completely adhere to the general apocalyptic format. But I’ll respond to your question.

“Apocalypses are stories that use symbols and visions to describe how people received understanding of spiritual realities from heavenly beings.”

Genesis 2-3 uses many symbols and visionary devices to describe a spiritual reality, i.e., that of man’s creation, his temptation, and fall.

“Human beings are given this knowledge by a vision that reveals the truth God wants them to know.”

There is no author mentioned who saw these events and wrote them down. But one must have existed or we would not have had the story (the author did not witness the event first hand). God revealed this story to the author whether he be Moses or not. Let us assume it was Moses … in Galatians 3:19, Paul writes that Moses received the Law through angels. So we potentially have Moses receiving the events from God through angels. Regardless, this story had to have been revealed by God to man.

“Apocalyptic literature has features in common with both prophecy and poetry.”

The Genesis 2-3 story does contain prophecies about the struggle between the seed of the woman and the serpent, about man’s struggle with the ground until he goes into it, and about God dealing with sin.

Also, there is much poetic language and poetic devises in the Hebrew, i.e., puns, word-play, chiasms, etc.

“In apocalyptic visions, on the other hand, seers or visionaries (those who see apocalyptic visions) are not as concerned about the present world, but look to heaven or the end of history through a vision that God has granted them.”

I think this statement is false. Apocalyptic literature by its very nature is concerned with the present world. It answers the questions about why the original audience is in the crisis they are in. The author of this quote states so further in his article:

“Even though biblical scholars may disagree about the specific meanings of some of the symbols and visions in various apocalyptic writings, they agree that apocalyptic writings serve to give hope to God’s people in times of crisis.”

“In one kind of apocalyptic vision, the seer is given a new understanding of human history and sees God’s hidden purpose and final plan for what happens to the created world.”

Why is man in a sinful world? Why does he suffer death? Why must he toil on the ground? Why do women suffer such horrible birth pains but still want to have kids? Why are women practically unequal with men? Why does man have such enmity with serpents? Why do we where clothes? How did this world come about? Why do men and women marry? Why does man relate with God? The first chapters of Genesis answers all these fundamental questions about man and his relation to his environment.

Figuratively, symbolically, spiritually, yes.

Fine. But since I believe that much non-literal language is used and that Adam and Eve in Gen 1-3 are not literal, historical figures, then I must disagree, which is okay. You’ll notice that we probably agree on the meaning of the 1-3 even though we differ on the literalness. That’s why its okay to disagree on other matters.

 

This was the statement I was responding to: “It is not logical or consistent with the rest of scripture to have real persons in a narrative account of the past that is not historically true. There is no other example in scripture of this that I can think of.”

Well, this is probably not going to convince you but Daniel was probably a historical figure but the accounts of his life given in the book of Daniel are not historically true.

Also, I’ll give the example of Solomon in Ecclesiastes and Job in the book of Job. Solomon was a historical figure but the author of Ecclesiastes uses him as a vehicle in a fictional account to make a theological point. Job was probably a real person but the author of the book creates whole passages of poetic dialogue to give him and his friends.

But the book of Daniel is both apocalyptic and short-story. Ecclesiastes is wisdom literature and poetry, as is Job. Genesis is narrative, poetry and apocalypse. Jonah is poetry and short-story. Revelation is epistle, prophecy and apocalypse. Its not always so clean cut as we would like it to be.

He wasn’t.

When did I say that Adam and Eve in Genesis 1-3 were “real”, “historical” people? I said that the Adam in 4 may have been real. I said there had to have been a first man. But I did not say that Adam and Eve in 1-3 were real, historical people.

I have seen this quite a lot recently in good natured debates about “inerrancy”. Christians will state that if they believe something about the Bible that turns out not to be true then the Bible is being deceptive. Since the Bible cannot be deceptive then that person’s original belief must be true. I think this is faulty logic. If I have an interpretation about the Bible that turns out not to be true then I do not blame the Bible, rather, I blame myself. It is not the Bible that is being deceptive it is my own biases that are deceiving me.

If the people in the creation account are not historical and the Bible does not claim them to be historical then the Bible is not deceptive. Since the Bible does not claim the story to be historical, then the Bible is not being deceptive. The Bible (Gen 1-11) is simply giving an account of how man came to be in the situation he is currently in using highly symbolic language to express a highly spiritual truth.

Most of Genesis is historical. The style of Genesis changes dramatically with the introduction of the patriarchal narratives. The story of Babel, flood story, the story of Cain and Abel are all self contained stories that have different styles. Even if we assume that Moses wrote them all he was definitely using different styles for each story. That alone should make us question are presuppositions about their “historical”, literal nature.

Show or convince? Those are two different matters. It is amazing that two people, both Christians, can read a God-breathed text and come away with two different interpretations about the genre of literature used. I can tell from the text and context that the author intends the material to be non-literal. Again, I read the account of Abraham and the material looks literal and “historical”. I can’t read it any another way.

You say that you were a literature major. That certainly helps one when reading the Bible. A good understanding of the writing process and the different genres employed by different authors helps in understanding the Scriptures.

It’s helpful to understand different styles of Hebrew poetry, different styles of Hebrew literature (law, history, wisdom, poetry, prophecy, apocalyptic, narrative, short story, etc.) Sometimes these are blended together which makes the reading a lot more fun.

Since Revelation gives the account of the end of the world and beginning of the new creation of mankind it is rather high priority. Both use symbolic language to convey a meaning beyond the past and present comprehension of man.

Oh, I think there are indications made. I think a good understanding of Hebrew literature and Hebrew poetic devices give us good indications. But what does it matter? God’s truth remains.

The creation of the world happened, but it’s pre-history. The end of the world will happen, but its post-history. These events that stand outside of history are just as much “real” as the events that stand inside history.

Adam and Eve may not have been “real” in the common “historical” sense but there situation was and is real enough. We each go through it every day and fail. As Christians, we belong to the body of Christ, the body of one who was in that situation and was victorious. When God sees us He no longer sees the first Adam, He sees the Second Adam. God sees us in Christ because in Him do we have salvation.

Bosh!

Or perhaps Satan wants us to reject others for differences of opinion on minutia so we break fellowship? Or perhaps Satan wants us to equate our own interpretations of Scripture with the actual meaning of the text. It’s possible.

By the way, what are the basics?

I take the Scriptures VERY seriously. They are from God. They are God-breathed. They are inerrant. But I am not inerrant and neither is anyone else. I do not assume that my first interpretation of Scripture is the right one. The Scriptures are infallible but my interpretation is not. I cannot assume that because I am a Southern Baptist born in Southern America in the last decades of the 20th century and am now living in the first decade of the 21st century that I am privileged to be apart of the first group of believers who have collectively gotten every single aspect of Scripture right in their interpretation and all other believers in all other parts of the world through history have gotten it wrong. I am not that prideful. I have much much to learn about the Scriptures. Every time I think I have gotten it down the Holy Spirit throws something else at me that I have got to work through.

There once was a time when men believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Whenever any believer went to read the Scriptures this is what they read. When science proved otherwise many believers thought that a heliocentric model was contrary to Scripture and a plot from the devil. Other believers went back to the Scriptures and came away saying, “Actually, the Bible never says that the sun revolves around the earth.” Then came the battles between believers on what Scripture meant. But today we believe in the earth revolving around the sun and we do not believe that the Bible teaches otherwise. But why did previous believers see a geocentric model of the universe in the Scriptures? Well, they came to the Scriptures with their own presuppositions about what the universe was like and read it into the Bible. They then taught their children that the Bible taught geocentric models. Those children grow up to believe in geocentric models. But when someone challenges this presupposition the geocentric believers defend their belief because they steadfastly believe that Scripture teaches thus. They have confused their interpretation with meaning of the text. And to attack their interpretation is therefore (in their minds) to attack Scripture itself.

Again, I do not mind other believers having different opinions about the historicity of the text. I do somewhat mind when other beleivers misinterpret the meaning of a text. But it happens to all of us.

What I do mind is the breaking of Christian fellowship over such minutia. I wish that all believers in Christ can fellowship despite disagreements about the literalness of the Genesis 1-11 account. I am glad we have BB in order to fellowship and exchange ideas. It's wonderful.

 

JohnV, you are right. I suppose I could have said it better. The idea being there are Valid reasons for believing both ways,it is God who is in control. I will be glad when I get to heaven then I will know for sure and have all of my other questions answered also.
I strongly agree with Marcia and her views. She takes a little different approach than I do but we come to the same conclusion.She also states her case very well.
I respectfully believe in a young earth for many valid reasons.This does not make me a dummy.I certainly would not break fellowship with someone over this issue.I read a lot on this board.Several people who believe in an old earth drive me wild,not because of what they believe but thier approach in the discussion.I see other places they speak or discuss different topics that I am with them 100% in agreement.

 

JohnV, you are right. I suppose I could have said it better. The idea being there are Valid reasons for believing both ways,it is God who is in control. I will be glad when I get to heaven then I will know for sure and have all of my other questions answered also.
I strongly agree with Marcia and her views. She takes a little different approach than I do but we come to the same conclusion.She also states her case very well.
I respectfully believe in a young earth for many valid reasons.This does not make me a dummy.I certainly would not break fellowship with someone over this issue.I read a lot on this board.Several people who believe in an old earth drive me wild,not because of what they believe but thier approach in the discussion.I see other places they speak or discuss different topics that I am with them 100% in agreement.