Adam and Eve spoke What language?

[jeffweeder]

Everyone spoke the same language up until the 4th generation after the flood.
Adams life overlapped with Methusalah, who in turn overlapped with Noah and Shem, and Shem lived till days of Abraham.

What language did they/God communicate in.?

Would Shems language have been confused or retained at Babel?

 

[epr7142]

Adam and Eve probably communicated in a way we wouldn't understand today. They could not only speak to each other, but to all the animals in the garden (including the serpent) and even god face to face. This was probably a "perfect" language that we could never get close to reviving on our own.

As far as shems language, I believe it probably got corrupted and watered down over time and by abrahams time it was so corrupted and broken it could no longer be effectively used.

 

[jeffweeder]

Hi there.

The book of Genesis was put together much later ,by Moses (possibly).
Whoever wrote Genesis used ancient documents that he fully understood.(Family records)

examples,

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

Now these are the records of the generations of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah; and sons were born to them after the flood.

These are the records of the generations of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old, and became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood;


Now these are the records of the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's maid, bore to Abraham;

etc



God spoke to Adam, God spoke to Noah, God spoke to Abraham and God spoke and wrote to Moses.

Hebrew seems the most likely language....to me anyway.

Adam was in conversation with Methusalah, Methusalah was in conversation with Noah and Shem, and Shem was in conversation with Abraham the Hebrew.

Shems family wasnt part of the rebellion at Babel, and retained the language that God had spoke to that righteous line since Adam and Seth. (remembering Abel, God bless him).
I doubt that God would change his means of communication to his chosen ones because of the confusion of Babel.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[Mr Dave]

Interesting question, I'd say that it was a language like Hebrew but not Hebrew. The languages from that part of the world (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic...) are the Semitic languages, which are supposedly derived from a common ancestor - Shem. In Hebrew, the letters 'S', and 'Sh' are very similar, so Semitic is really Shemitic.
I say that it was probably a language similar to, but not quite, Hebrew because Adam would (probably) have spoken an 'Adamitic' language that was a slight predecessor to Hebrew, and if different would have been only slightly so.

 

[jeffweeder]

Greetings Mr Dave.

Whatever language Adam spoke, everyone spoke that language till the fourth generation after the flood. Shem came off the ark speaking the same language and spoke with Abraham from his family line, and Abraham is known as a Hebrew.

 

[Mr Dave]

Greetings Mr Dave.

Whatever language Adam spoke, everyone spoke that language till the fourth generation after the flood. Shem came off the ark speaking the same language and spoke with Abraham from his family line, and Abraham is known as a Hebrew.

Ah touché

 

[jeffweeder]

.............:d..................

 

[Assyrian]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7489397/Adam and Eve spoke What language?

1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die...
Looking up famous last words I see a lot of English, but also Dutch, Hebrew Greek, Latin, French, Hungarian, Spanish...

 

[shernren]

1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die...
Looking up famous last words I see a lot of English, but also Dutch, Hebrew Greek, Latin, French, Hungarian, Spanish...

So English is God's first language! That explains a lot!

YouTube - ‪Tim James Ad Spoof‬‎

 

[Papias]

Jeff, the reason everyone is treating this as a joke thread is because the question shows a complete misunderstanding of the scripture.

Jeff wrote:

Everyone spoke the same language up until the 4th generation after the flood.
Adams life overlapped with Methusalah, who in turn overlapped with Noah and Shem, and Shem lived till days of Abraham.

What language did they/God communicate in.?

Would Shems language have been confused or retained at Babel?

Adam and Eve are symbols for when humans evolved enough to rebel against God. It's not clear that they had what we would call a language at that point. The tower of Babel is a metaphor as well, because we know that different languages existed long before the ~4,000 years a literal reading would give for Babel.
Origin of language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language dates back at least 50,000 years, and probably more.

Reading those stories as if they are literal history, then wondering what language Adam spoke in is like reading John 2:19, mistaking the metaphorical prediction about his body for a literal prediction about the brick and mortar temple, and then wondering if Jesus would use a sledgehammer or a tractor to break the stones of the temple. It simply misses the whole point, and diminishes the scripture.

Papias

 

[shernren]

It was obviously Esperanto.

 

[jeffweeder]

Jeff wrote:


Adam and Eve are symbols for when humans evolved enough to rebel against God. It's not clear that they had what we would call a language at that point. The tower of Babel is a metaphor as well .
Papias

Evolved enough to rebel? So where are all the children they had before the fall? Is their anyone out there who has lived forever?
Adam was clever enough to name all the animals, but couldnt talk properly?
sooo is Noah at metaphor? Is Abraham a metaphor?
Is Moses and the Exodus a Metaphor?
Was Joe really sold into exile, only to become pirime minister of Egypt?

Where do you draw the line from when Gen actually becomes history?

If tongues of confusion at Babel are a metaphor, was speaking in tongues at pentecost a metaphor?

 

[Papias]

Jeff wrote:

Evolved enough to rebel? So where are all the children they had before the fall?

Children from tens of thousands of years ago are certainly dead. Why would you think any pre-adamites are alive today?

Is their anyone out there who has lived forever?

Do you mean average humans who have lived forever? then no.

Adam was clever enough to name all the animals, but couldnt talk properly?

There are literally millions of species of animals. Naming all of them would take a long time, not to mention the question of how he named animals that aren't anywhere near him. Adam named the emperor penguin? Adam named deep sea anglerfish, and the vent tube worm? Linneaus had nothing to do because all the animals had already been named? Really? See how taking a metaphor as literal history causes reality problems, and ends up making Christianity look silly?

sooo is Noah at metaphor?

obviously. There are so many non-historical and nonsensical aspects to the story that it is obviously written as a metaphor, unless you are saying that the Bible isn't divinely inspired.

Is Moses and the Exodus a Metaphor?
Is Abraham a metaphor?

Do you have evidence that these are not possible?

Was Joe really sold into exile, only to become pirime minister of Egypt?

I don't know, but the input from those who have spent their lives studying those passages would probably be useful.

Where do you draw the line from when Gen actually becomes history?

Because I'm not an OT scholar, and don't know hardly any hebrew, it would be pure hubris for me to say where I would draw that line. It would be like me telling you how to do proper brain sugery.

If tongues of confusion at Babel are a metaphor,

Which it was because we have ample evidence of different languages before that, in addition to all the other problems, like the population numbers problems inherent in the story, and the missing tower issue.

was speaking in tongues at pentecost a metaphor?

I know of no evidence to suggest that the speaking in tongues was a metaphor. Do you?

Jeff, I hope you recognize that there is plenty of metaphor use throughout whichever Bible you use, and that this metaphor is a powerful way to convey important meanings that are lost if one misses the metaphor. I gave the example of Jesus and the temple demolition. Surely you recognize that metaphor exists in your Bible, right? Also, have you wondered why everyone is treating this as a joke thread?

Papias

 

[DamianWarS]

Adam and Eve are symbols for when humans evolved enough to rebel against God.

It is dangerous to completely dismiss creation in the name of evolution. As already mentioned by jeffweeder where do you draw the line of what is a symbol and what isn't? Certainly there are metaphors used in the bible but we need to take the passages into context before we begin to say what is a metaphor and what should be taken more literally and we can also use other scripture that reference these accounts to see how we should interpret them.

You used the example of John 2:19 where Jesus says "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." Jesus was not actually talking about the temple he was talking about his own body so he was using the temple as a metaphor for his body. But how do we know this? Well if you continue reading it explains it right in the text and exposes the metaphor in verse 21 "the temple he had spoken of was his body". The account in Genesis makes no claim to being a metaphor so we cannot interpret the account in Genesis as a metaphor on the basis that John 2:19 was a metaphor.

By your rules since the bible uses metaphors then I should be able to interpret anything in the bible as a metaphors. You can't use one blanket rule to cover all the texts in the bible. Each book has its own style of writing, genre, audience and message and each needs to be interpreted differently.

When Jesus is defining marriage when asked about divorce he says:

Mat. 19:4-6

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

"Haven't you read" was the first think he says then he goes on an quotes the book of Genesis. The book of Genesis is a part of Hebrew texts called the Pentateuch which the Pharisees (the audience) knew all about. They knew what he was quoting and referring to. Jesus acknowledges that God made both male and female and that it was done with purpose for an example of marriage that we should look to. You could say it was a metaphor for marriage and that may be true but Jesus never challenges the literal he instead agrees with the text so we can only assume Jesus agreed with the literal instead of disagrees for that context since he doesn't expose anything else. Certainly the Pharisees, the people he was talking to, would believe it as a literal account.

We see in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 a genealogy that agrees with the same presented in Genesis and Adam is the first. Luke even says that Adam was the "son of God". 1 Timothy 2:11-15 says "Adam was formed first, then Eve". There are in fact many accounts in the bible that refer back to Adam but none speak of anything before Adam. These accounts may use metaphors with Adam and Eve but none deny the literal or make any claims close to that. To say that because they are using the account in a metaphor style does not make it a metaphor itself and does not dismiss the literal. If it did then Jesus never died on the cross instead that was just a metaphor. A literal event can happen with deep symbolism in it at the same time. This doesn't prove that it didn't happen because it is too convenient but instead that God is in control and we are not.

It is believed that Moses wrote Genesis and not from old manuscripts written before the flood as Jeffweeder suggests, (how did they survive the flood?) but from his time he spent on Mt. Sinai for 40 days with God. But who ever the author the book of Genesis is still god-breathed along with the other texts of the bible. Perhaps the actual events did not go exactly as explained in Genesis but the account is written how it is with purpose and the truth behind the text is infallible. Nothing exposes it as a metaphor so to claim it is, is something that is not supported by the bible. What we need to recognize is the truth that is in the words not the truth in words that are not present (like the language they spoke or that Adam and Eve evolved into what they were in genesis)

 

[Papias]

Damien wrote:

It is dangerous to completely dismiss creation in the name of evolution.

I don't dismiss it - I recognize that God used evolution as a method to create. To say that the Genesis story was meant as literal history is to say that God lied, because the physical evidence is overwhelming that the past didn't happen that way, not to mention the many things in the story that are absurdities if read literally.

As already mentioned by jeffweeder where do you draw the line of what is a symbol and what isn't? Certainly there are metaphors used in the bible but we need to take the passages into context before we begin to say what is a metaphor and what should be taken more literally and we can also use other scripture that reference these accounts to see how we should interpret them.

Of course. That's why checking with scholars, who have spent their whole lives studying these, often in the original hebrew, is so useful. Reading it in the original hebrew gives cues throughout genesis that it is intended metaphorically.

You used the example of John 2:19 where Jesus says "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." Jesus was not actually talking about the temple he was talking about his own body so he was using the temple as a metaphor for his body. But how do we know this? Well if you continue reading it explains it right in the text and exposes the metaphor in verse 21 "the temple he had spoken of was his body". The account in Genesis makes no claim to being a metaphor so we cannot interpret the account in Genesis as a metaphor on the basis that John 2:19 was a metaphor.

So you are saying that only verses that are specifically said to be metaphor can be interpreted as a metaphor?

By your rules since the bible uses metaphors then I should be able to interpret anything in the bible as a metaphors. You can't use one blanket rule to cover all the texts in the bible. Each book has its own style of writing, genre, audience and message and each needs to be interpreted differently.

Of course it is not valid to just decide everything is a metaphor! I didn't say that. I did say that there are internal cues to when something is a metaphor, and one of them is when something is absurd if interpreted literally, like saying that in the song of solomon, when it says "your breasts are like twin fawns", it is clearly a metaphor.

The book of Genesis is a part of Hebrew texts called the Pentateuch

Wow, I nevir new dat!

I've studied the different Bibles for 30 years, including their origins and histories. If you want to discuss whether the Byzantine variants are more attested than what we find in codex sinaiticus, we can do that, but hey, I guess I can learn about dis "Pentaduke" thingy from you......

We see in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 a genealogy that agrees with the same presented in Genesis and Adam is the first. Luke even says that Adam was the "son of God". 1 Timothy 2:11-15 says "Adam was formed first, then Eve". There are in fact many accounts in the bible that refer back to Adam but none speak of anything before Adam. These accounts may use metaphors with Adam and Eve but none deny the literal or make any claims close to that. To say that because they are using the account in a metaphor style does not make it a metaphor itself and does not dismiss the literal.

None of them deny a metaphorical reading either. Look, I can understand if you want to interpret you Bible one way, however, I hope you are aware that many theologians and clergy see all these consistent with both evolution and a 4.6 billion year age for the earth.

Speaking of those geneologies, have you compared, line by line, the geneology in 1 Cr 1 with that in Mt 1?

If it did then Jesus never died on the cross instead that was just a metaphor. A literal event can happen with deep symbolism in it at the same time. This doesn't prove that it didn't happen because it is too convenient but instead that God is in control and we are not.

Why would you decided that Jesus didn't die on the cross after you find a metaphor in you Bible? You already said that you agreed there were metaphors in the Bible - so are you saying that Jesus didn't die on the cross?

But who ever the author the book of Genesis is still god-breathed along with the other texts of the bible. Perhaps the actual events did not go exactly as explained in Genesis but the account is written how it is with purpose and the truth behind the text is infallible.

Have I ever disputed any of that? Pointing out where something is a metaphor is not saying that it isn't God-breathed.

Nothing exposes it as a metaphor so to claim it is, is something that is not supported by the bible.

Again, you are saying here that if something is not said to be a metaphor, then it can't be one, right?

Papias

 

[DamianWarS]

I don't dismiss it - I recognize that God used evolution as a method to create. To say that the Genesis story was meant as literal history is to say that God lied, because the physical evidence is overwhelming that the past didn't happen that way, not to mention the many things in the story that are absurdities if read literally.

certainly there are different ways of interpreting the creation story. A popular way for example is viewing each day a duration of time instead of 1 single day. For example each day could be 64 million years. But if the days are like this it still does not assume man came to be through evolution. Genesis 1 for example is written like poetry metaphors are used all the time but Genesis 2 is not where it is clear man was created from the dust of the earth and God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils.

Of course. That's why checking with scholars, who have spent their whole lives studying these, often in the original hebrew, is so useful. Reading it in the original hebrew gives cues throughout genesis that it is intended metaphorically.

just because you say the original Hebrew points to metaphorical cues doesn't make it so. if you wish to make a point then please let us all know these cues.

So you are saying that only verses that are specifically said to be metaphor can be interpreted as a metaphor?

this is a circular argument. My point is you can't simply point at another verse in the bible in a completely different context that is a metaphor to show that this text is also a metaphor nor can you do the opposite.

Of course it is not valid to just decide everything is a metaphor! I didn't say that. I did say that there are internal cues to when something is a metaphor, and one of them is when something is absurd if interpreted literally, like saying that in the song of solomon, when it says "your breasts are like twin fawns", it is clearly a metaphor.

is that your special "cues" that you can only see in hebrew. You had better do better than that because why don't we just write off the whole bible then. The gospel message doesn't make sense either so I guess because it doesn't make sense it must not be literal true, again circular reasoning.

You are using a another verse in the bible that is clearly metaphorical and using it to prove that genesis is also a metaphor. lets look at song of solomon for a moment and see why "your breasts are like twin fawns" would be a metaphor instead of taken literally. Well for starters Song of Solomon is a poetry book. It is the style of poetry to use metaphors. Also saying "A" is like "B" is exposing the metaphor, its called a simile where you start with something that is taken literally and compare it with something that is taken metaphorically for example Frank was flopping like a fish on a line. I know that frank is not a fish but he is moving like a fish would on a line. So in the text in Song of Solomon I know that "breats" are the litteral and that comparison to "twin fawns" is the metaphor. There is no more explaining that needs to be done the text is clear which part is what.

As mentioned earlier I know Genesis 1 is also poetry that's why it can be taken metaphorically. However Genesis 2 is not poetry and it has it's own creation account that agrees with Genesis 1.

None of them deny a metaphorical reading either. Look, I can understand if you want to interpret you Bible one way, however, I hope you are aware that many theologians and clergy see all these consistent with both evolution and a 4.6 billion year age for the earth.

again this is circular reasoning. I only brought it up to expose the pointlessness of it. So we have this clear just because one area of the bible is one way doesn't make the another area the same way.

Speaking of those geneologies, have you compared, line by line, the geneology in 1 Cr 1 with that in Mt 1?

they both are pretty consistent when it comes to adam being the first.

Why would you decided that Jesus didn't die on the cross after you find a metaphor in you Bible? You already said that you agreed there were metaphors in the Bible - so are you saying that Jesus didn't die on the cross?

My example is that Genesis should not be assumed a metaphor simply because it has a lot of symbolism and is used metaphorically in other passages. And if it were so then we can use the same reasoning for Jesus Christ's death on the cross which also has a lot of symbolism and is used metaphorically in other passages. In short I am exposing your circular reasoning because it doesn't prove anything.

Again, you are saying here that if something is not said to be a metaphor, then it can't be one, right?

more circular reasoning. My point is to expose it your point is to use it to claim something.

 

[jeffweeder]

Jeff wrote:

Evolved enough to rebel? So where are all the children they had before the fall?
​

Ans...

Children from tens of thousands of years ago are certainly dead. Why would you think any pre-adamites are alive today?

There was no death before Adam and Eve fell.So if there were children before the fall, they would be relient also to eat as they did in order to fall....we have no evidence that they didnt....How stupid would that be as you watched your parents age before your very eyes.....to eat also.

Conclusion...Cain was the firstborn of fallen man...a liar and a murderer.

 

[DamianWarS]

back to the topic....

the bible does not say how much time past before Eve was created. in Gen 2:19 it says "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them" A task like this would 1) involve speech and 2) probably take longer than 1 day. During this time it is when we find in verse 20 that "no suitable helper was found" (for Adam). And then God put Adam in a deep sleep and created Eve.

There are no dates given and the first date we see is when Seth is born when Adam is 130 years old (Gen 5:3). Now Seth was born after Cain killed Abel because we see in Gen 4:25 "Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."" So if you give about 30 years for Cain and Abel to be born, grow up, learn to "work the soil", "keep flocks" and for Cain to kill Abel, Adam is then about 100 years.

Perhaps Eve was created when Adam was about 100 years. This would give Adam 100 years to learn to speak and name all the animals. God would be of course at the core of that helping him and teaching him after all it does say God "brought [the animals] to man to see what he would name them" so it is clear that God did help Adam so why not in his speech as well.

the language Adam spoke probably resembled that of Hebrew or a primitive Semitic language. As already mentioned "Semitic" is from the Biblical "Shem" which is Noah's son. Elohiym is the Hebrew word for God and it is rooted in the word "El" which is just a generic word for God. Dante hypothesizes that the first sound out of Adam's mouth was of a cry that sounded like "El" and in the same way the first sound out of a new born baby is a similar cry; a cry of joy that addresses the creator. The name of Eve which means "life" in Hebrew apparently only makes sense in Hebrew and of course Hebrew is the language of the Israelites so Hebrew seems to be a natural answer. Of course Genesis is written in Hebrew so naturally the words like "Eve" would be in Hebrew so maybe its a little too convenient.

 

[Papias]

Jeff wrote:

There was no death before Adam and Eve fell.So if there were children before the fall, they would be relient also to eat as they did in order to fall....we have no evidence that they didnt....How stupid would that be as you watched your parents age before your very eyes.....to eat also.

First, I'm sorry that I don't understand what you wrote. what do you mean by "relient"? But the death part doesn't fit the real world. There has been death for millions of years, long before there were humans. This is obvious even if one takes a "long days" approach as Damien did, because millions of years of animals with no death would cause living bodies to be stacked over each other, deeper and deeper - not to mention food and many other issues. That's why so many theologians point out that the "no death before adam" idea is a misreading of the text.

Damien wrote:

Genesis 1 for example is written like poetry metaphors are used all the time but Genesis 2 is not where it is clear man was created from the dust of the earth and God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils.

You really think that the correct interpretation of text from a loving, truthful God is that Humans were made when that God performed mouth to nose resuscitation on a dirt clod?

This would give Adam 100 years to learn to speak and name all the animals. God would be of course at the core of that helping him and teaching him

There are estimated to be over 30 million animals. Even using your made up, non-biblical 100 year number, that would give Adam only 2 minutes to come up with, learn, and speak the name of each one, even if he worked day and night without sleeping or eating for 100 years. He's one quick learner, I guess!

after all it does say God "brought [the animals] to man to see what he would name them" so it is clear that God did help Adam so why not in his speech as well.

OK, so God physically brought the blue whale, perhaps levitating it and flying it over hundreds of miles to bring to Adam, along with insects that only live in rainforests, deep sea anglerfish being floated out of the depths, penguins twirling though the air towards Adam, and blind cave fish flying out of their caves? See how silly a literal interpretation is? Plus, a literal interpretation says that God is not omniscient ("to see what he would name them"). Ouch again.

just because you say the original Hebrew points to metaphorical cues doesn't make it so. if you wish to make a point then please let us all know these cues.

OK, I don't know all of them, but one is that Adam is formed from the dirt and named "dirt" ("Adam" in Hebrew means "dirt"). It's a joke, a cue that the story is not to be taken too seriously.

As mentioned earlier I know Genesis 1 is also poetry that's why it can be taken metaphorically. However Genesis 2 is not poetry and it has it's own creation account that agrees with Genesis 1.

Um, you are aware, I hope, that the chapter divisions are human additions that weren't made until the middle ages, right? Plus, the 1-7 days of the first creation story goes from the start into chapter 2, and it's not until partway through chapter 2 that the second story starts, again showing that your "chapter 2 is literal" doesn't make sense.

The fact that they don't agree has been discussed ad nauseum here. That's probably worth a whole separate thread if you doubt that they are different. The easiest way to see the difference is to just look at the order of creation in each one.

Originally Posted by Papias

Speaking of those geneologies, have you compared, line by line, the geneology in 1 Cr 1 with that in Mt 1?
​

they both are pretty consistent when it comes to adam being the first.

OK, and they are also both pretty consistent in that they both use letters. I asked if you had compared them line by line. Have you done so? Do they give the same geneology?

You are using a another verse in the bible that is clearly metaphorical and using it to prove that genesis is also a metaphor.

No, I'm not. What I'm doing is pointing to a clearly metaphorical verse (which as you saw was embedded in the middle of historical verses), to show that there actually are metaphors in the Bibles. Now that I see you agree with me that there are metaphors in the Bibles (you agreed that Genesis 1, Song of Solomon, etc, are metaphorical), then that point is made. Because we both agree that there are metaphors in the Bibles, then for any verse, it may or may not be a metaphor, based on internal cues and on if it contradicts other parts of God's revelation if interpreted literally. I hope we can agree on that much.

My example is that Genesis should not be assumed a metaphor simply because it has a lot of symbolism and is used metaphorically in other passages. And if it were so then we can use the same reasoning for Jesus Christ's death on the cross which also has a lot of symbolism and is used metaphorically in other passages. In short I am exposing your circular reasoning because it doesn't prove anything.

You have repeatedly said that the interpretation of part of a Bible as a metaphor means that all of it becomes a metaphor and so one's entire Bible becomes meaningless. Then, you turn around and say that YOU see parts as metaphors, but somehow that doesn't mean your similar action makes your whole Bible unravel.

It's really quite simple. I hope we both agree that there are some parts that are metaphor, some that are to be interpreted literally, and that it takes careful examination of the verse in question to determine what is a metaphor, and that the interpretation should not cause a contradiction with another part of God's revelation. Do we agree on that?

Papias

 

[lordworshipper]

Where do you draw the line from when Gen actually becomes history?

Where does one draw the line between history and history in its classical/premodern form? Which was interwoven with myth and metaphor.