Adam not literal????

I don't disagree with what you are saying. What I am saying is what the Bible says. The Hebrew word adam is used generically in the first tow chapters of Genesis. I have quoted the verses and the Hebrew words. Now you want me to tear those pages out just to let you all have your way and keep the Bible true. I didn't write the Bible, but in plain English, that is how it reads in Hebrew.

I didn't know it was good hermeneutics to change words when they don't fit into your quirks.

Cheers,

Jim

 

So how do you know it is used generically in the first 2 chapters and specifically in the the 3rd?

You are saying what the Bible says, but your assuming that God was using it generically.

 

Jim,

Appealing to the semantic domain of "adam" won't help here. The fact that it is used X number of times generically says nothing about how it is used in Gen 1-2. But let's assume for the moment that it is generic ... for mankind. There is still only one of them and his name (at least later as you admit) was Adam. So it doesn't help you to argue that the word can mean something else.

 

...and we keep coming back to a specific life span and a specific death. How can that be an "everyman" term? Those are specific events!

 

Good points Jim. As some point people had to know I would jump in.

 

Also note it doesn't affect Romans 5. Thats a bit of a stretch. For instance a monarch speaks for his people and represents his people like in the OT in Israel. If he sins the people suffer for it. However, Jim is right. Adam is a dirivative of Adamah which means earth or dirt. Again I could bring in the Summerian stylistic writings to show the popularity of genesis account type literature.

 

Of course, a monarch speaking and the Word of God are just a llittle bit different. One doesn't have to be accurate. The other always is.

 

"Doesn't effect Romans 5" couldn't get any ........stretchier

 

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.

But with the same elements of construction that causes some confusion we also can determine more out of the limited amounts of information that were written.

Kinda like bandwidth. Out of a very narrow amount of vehicle in which to communicate concepts and principles we get what many take encyclopedia sets only scratch the surface of.

 

Thats a nice sentiment but doesn't affect the principle of the thing.

 

:applause:

Note when reading Matthew a lot of people miss out on this aspect of 1:17

Is not so much Matthew trying to get Jesus geneology perfect but meant to be looked at like the reading of the Hebrew text called gematria. So we see the hebrew word for David or dalet vav dalet which have numerical values associated with it: dalet = 4 vav = 6 dalet = 4 and we sum it up to get 14. So the Hebrew readers of Matthew (the audience at the time of its writing) would see David David David. Yeshua is the son of David or Messiah.

 

But the people of a monarch don't suffer in the same way that we suffer because of Adam. In your view, sin becomes a corporate issue (the passing down of the sins of humanity) rather than a personal one (the sin of "one man"). Romans 5 makes clear that Adam was "one man" not humanity at large.

No matter whether one is OEC, YEC, or something else, all humanity must have a common ancestor. That is the "one man" that sinned against God about whom Moses and Paul (and Jesus) spoke.

It also means man, farmer, realm of the dead, blood. So that doesn't really help us. Establishing to semantic domain of a word only testifies to the variety of ways in which a word can be used. It says nothing about the actual use in a given context.

Sumerian accounts won't really help. We should expect those types of accounts if Genesis is true. And only if Genesis is true should we expect them. According to Genesis, all mankind has a common ancestor from which stories would have been passed down. Thus each civilization would have its record of the original story. Only Genesis however has the mark of inspiration by God and therefore the promise of accuracy.

 

BTW take a note of my post just above yours. Also Romans says just as by one man sin entered the world so by one man.... Yet Jesus being that one man redeems the world yet at the time of his life (Jesus) weren't there millions of human beings in existance? Follow the train of thought then. Why couldn't Adam be representative? Obviously he is if you believe he's just one man. And the people did suffer the same as the monarch in Israel. The Just and the unjust suffered the same.

 

As to whether or not Adam is a 'literal' or 'real person', if the "first man" or "first Adam" was not a literal person, why would the "second man" or "last Adam" be seen as a 'literal" or 'real person', either?

The one is presented just as 'literal' as the other, in I Cor. 15:45-49. And Paul identifies us, as Christians, with both individuals in this passage.

As to the question you asked about the 'plural' usage, although I'm not Jim1999, that may be found here, among other places.

Besides the KJV, the BIS, GEN, WBT, RV, ASV, PES, and DBY, among others, render this Hebrew word as "Adam" in the sense of a 'proper' noun.

By contrast, besides the NKJV, the MCB, YLT, NIV, LIV, NASB, RSV, and HCSB, among others, render this in the 'generic' sense as either "man" or "mankind" or something similar.

The footnote of the ESV (as well as several other versions) covers this; the AMP gets the best of both worlds, here , by giving both usages; and the JFB commentary has this to say.

Point is, none of these foregoing posts are (or were) necessarily incorrect, but neither are most telling the whole story, either.

Hope that helps, a little bit, anyhow.

Ed

 

The difficulty in understanding Adam as a plural man or a symbol for humanity is the specificity of the Hebrew language. (BTW, I have learned Hebrew.) I believe Adam is a literal person who literally lived in the Garden of Eden and was literally the first man. (I also believe the image of God is not a physical image, since God is compositely simple in His parts, but a spiritual image...I digress.)

Now I don't think Adam's name was Adam. He didn't have a name tag saying "Hi, my name is Adam." He was probably just..."Hey...man!" or "Hey, dad!" to everyone he met. It is true that the Hebrew text uses the word 'adam like the Greek uses anthropos. But that doesn't mean Adam (for lack of a better name) wasn't literal.

So I guess the big question is how are we supposed to understand "Adam" as a plural or metaphorical representation of humanity when the Hebrew uses the definite article in describing him and his actions in Genesis 2?

 

As a matter of fact, it makes all the difference. It means that God is going to be specific about what He is saying.

In the issue of "by one man" in Romans 5 the reference is obviously to Jesus, a particular person. It's a literary device where any plain reading would point to Jesus not to a generic of every man's obedience. Just as a plain reading of that passage would be mean a singular man whose disobedience brought sin.

 

Without a doubt you have to have a Pre-conceived agenda to not see the plain meaning of Genesis 1 & 2 & Romans 5.

 

You're defining the same word in to ways. Jesus is singular His act redeems all man kind. There are millions of people living at the same time as Jesus. They perform no act. Adam is also singular. Why couldn't he (Adam) be representative especially when we consider the method in which the Torah was writen? A point was taken previously that Adam is a generic name not a formal one. Is there a point here? See. Its a plain reading of the text in context of the text in referrance and the cultural norms of the day. You may misunderstand here like my referrence about Matthew 1:17. Context.