Adam not literal????

There is no evidence that Adam was a generic name only.

 

Yes, that doesn't help, besides being very far-fetched.

Adam is a representative in that he is our federal head, but he is such as a real individual. The point is that the "millions of humans in existence" (then and now) are imputed the sins of one man, just as they are imputed the righteousness of one man. There is no biblical warrant for taking the Adam of Genesis 1-3 as a general respresentative rather than a specific person.

No they didn't. The people were never charged with the personal sins of the monarch. Sin was, at best, an influence, not an imputation.

 

What you two are missing is that Adam was not a name tag like John, Tom, or Suzy...it was a title.

The names in the Torah are not tags...they were titles in each and every instance. They all have meanings beyond what we are accustomed to.

Why else would God sit and watch Adam name the animals so closely. The names/titles that Adam gave each animal wasn't recorded. Pharoah wasn't just one guy either...it was several...even during the plague years it was more than one Pharaoh even though it would appear as one. (written that way on purpose too...for a deliberate reason)

Just like there was more than one Abimelek.

 

I'd read 2nd Kings again and Daniel. Also note not as far fetched as you suppose. cultural context is very important. Matthew was written to the Jews and used Jewish language and principles. In fact if you look throughout the NT you see tons of Jewish type referrence which would make sense since the apostles and Jesus were Jewish. It think its a point missed by many.

 

Again good point :applause:

 

But when there is only one person, the distinction between name and title is nonsensical. But even if it was a title, it is the title for one individual. His wife had a different "title" (which is usually called "name").

 

But you still can't account for the literal nature the writers of Scripture ascribe to Adam. We have no biblical evidence to the contrary. In fact an honest read of Scripture leads us to see the writers unanimously affirming Adam as a singular, distinct person.

Also you're point about 'Adam being evidence of a plurality or generic is wrongheaded. If we think about it is like what happens with a strong brand name that turns into a generic label. Aspirin was actually a singular brand at one point but it got so popular that everything became "aspirin." The same is true with Adam. The term became so universal that it applied as a generic term yet there is a singular, literal referent historically.

 

Why? The sins of the monarch were not charged corporately but individually. In other words, God did not judge "Joe Jew" by the sins of Manesseh. The OT Law economy was about corporate guilt and righteousness, but not in terms of individual standing with God. You can't confuse corporate Israel with the individual.

There's a reason it is missed by many. It isn't really there. It doesn't make an actual point. It is creative to be sure, but can hardly be asserted as a fact of exegesis. Again, we must deal with the actual text itself, not with the ideas of people with too much time on their hands.

 

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.

 

Exactly. These modern ideas cannot be read back onto the text. Virtually no one, historically, thought "Adam" was anything other than an actual person. That is a modern idea that did not arise from the Jewish context.

 

Just needed to be resaid. In fact the Jewish literature through the Second Temple believes Adam to be a literal, historical person.

People who believe otherwise, while my still my friends and peers, have a tremendous burden of evidence on them to give biblical evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't want that responsibility.

 

Pastor Larry,
You aren't completely wrong. Just your "nonsensical" part of your reply.

It was important. Eve's name wasn't Eve...It was Hawwah or something like that...it meant "mother of all living" meaning that she was to be the mother of all of mankind...an equal partner with Adam as he was the ruler of the Earth and it's animals.

She didn't need a tag...there was only one other person running about the planet at that time and it was Eve...so when Adam needed to call her a name tag wasn't neccesary. But she did need a title as God had given him one...So he gave her the title of "Mother of all living" not that she was to give birth to animals...just that she was going to co-reign with Adam.

 

Exactly? No. You're still looking at it from a modern context. Not from the historical context which is why I brought up the Summerian texts which are written in that cultural context of the Torah. We see how the liturature was used at that Period.

 

PastorLarry,

Let me come back to this point one last time...

There was only one man through whom sin was brought into this world...
No other could have the affect as this one man...except for the "second Adam" as described by Paul.

The "second bride" is something that has been debated...but it can be said to be the Church...as in all those that are not believers are dead in their sins and so in that sense the Church is the mother of all living again.

Not that there wasn't a literal Adam nor a literal Eve.

Or the fact that Jesus wasn't literally a God/Man and that his bride isn't literally the Church.

 

I am missing nothing. H120 (Strongs: an individual or the species, mankind, etc.) It can refer to an individual or a more generic context. Given the context of Genesis 1-3 it is clear that it is in the individual context. The generic context does not fit any way you cut it up. What you are forgetting is that name "tags" have most always meant something as in a title. But that does not take away from the individual existence.

And I just cleared this up. But I will repeat it for clarity. All names in the history of names (tags) have had some meaning beyond just and indiviual designation. For example, my first name "Mark" is Latin and it means "war like", my middle name "Andrew" is from the Greek and it means "manly", my last name "Mitchell" is from the Hebrew and it means "who is like God".

Adam's name is no different.

This has nothing to do with his name and fails to make sense either way.

Not relevant.

This is so far out in left field it is not worth answering.

 

Eve is the anglicized version of the Hebrew. Gen 3:20 says it was what he "called her name" (shem). So the Bible says it was her name. If you disagree, then so be it I guess.

The fact that she was the only other person when she was named is irrelevant, since before long there would be more.

 

This is pure speculation with no scriptural foundation.

 

You are telling me that in the cultural context of the Torah and ancient Sumerian literature, no one was ever referred to as an individual? I know you cant' be saying that, which makes me wonder what you are saying.

It is clear from ancient literature that there were individuals. It is clear that the word "adam" can be used to refer to an individual or to a group of people collectively. The question is, what is it in Gen 1-3? It's pretty simple: In Genesis 1-3 there was only one man alive. Hence, it is individual.

 

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.

 

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.