Mason Bane

(Of course, the first man existed thousands of years before the Bible says and was an African, etc. I am here discussing only if Adam was intended by the original Hebrew authors as an individual person.)

I found this free computer program that allows me to view the Bible with the English right below the Hebrew and click on the Hebrew for definitions. I was looking at Genesis, and I saw that every single mention of man is "adm" I can also see how it could be almost always read as "mankind" and make perfect sense. Especially when the author of Genesis calles man and woman together "adm."

But later on in Genesis, Adam is used in a genealogy and I can't use mankind here. You almost have to interpret it as though he were a real person.

And finally, in the NT, Adam is definitely seen as being an individual.

I wonder why adm was clearly mankind but changed when the genealogy came about?

schilling.klaus

Adam is metaphysical reality.
Only fools see a human person in Adam.

Klkaus Schiling

Amaleq13

That is Klaus' way of saying "Welcome to IIDB".

Timetospend

If taken literally, Adam would appear to be an individual at least in some usages of the term before we get the the genealogies. For instance, the fall and curse sections of Genesis 3 would seem to imply an individual, again if taken literally.

If taken metaphorically or allegorically, you can probably make Adam be humanity or mankind...or just about anything else.

Thanks,

mg01

Hey Mason, what program are you using? Can you send a link? I have in Excel a Hebrew/English version originally from the 1904 JPS publication that I've added the NIV and NRSV along side it.

Bible One allows you to hover and see the Hebrew defintion.

Blue Letter Bible allows you to do searches by Strong Number for even more info.

Adam ("man/mankind") being made from clay is a bit of a pun. The word for clay is "adamah" which goes back to Sumerian where the first man there was also made from clay. So even if they thought there really was a "first man", the story itself is told in a mythical fashion.

Mason Bane

I agree with you in part because I think almost the entire Bible is mythology. But here we are addressing the author's intent. The author uses Adam as a real person and the father of Cain and Abel. Paul saw a human person. And Matthew and Luke saw a human person in Jesus' genealogy.

Peter Kirby

In truly allegorical writing, several concrete figures stand in for ideas, so the existence of genealogies alone would not prevent us from taking Genesis 1-11 as allegorical.

What might? Can you reason with us further? I don't have the answer.

Mason Bane

[/QUOTE]


NT interpretation sees Adam as a human being. I would like to say they misinterpreted OT as in Matthew misreading Isaiah to be a Jesus prophecy. But I can't really say this yet. I am still gathering proof.

paarsurrey

Hi

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim.
We understand from Quran/Islam/Muhammad that Adam was not the first human being, humans evolved in billion of years. Adam belonged to a tribe and there were many tribes. Adam was the first real person with whom GodAllahYHWH had conversation directly, so he was the first ProphetMessenger of GodAllahYHWH. He made no hereditary sin, he made a mistake for which he repented and GodAllahYHWH being very Kind forgave him.
I respect every religion and every human being.

Thanks

JEST2ASK

Hello paarsurrey :wave:

Please forgive me for asking but is the bit about Adam & evolution widely accepted by all Muslims. It seems (perhaps just my limited view) that is not the general case ... sorry to jump so far the OP.