"Adam" in Greek

[mark kennedy]

Come on. You know better than that.

Not only are fewer women in our culture taking their husband's names; in some cultures that has never been a standard practice.

Come on gluadys, you know are aware of the definition of Adam and it means the first parent of humanity. Now you have descended to hair splitting semantics rather then acknowledging the clear testimony of Scripture.

You know better then that.

 

[Assyrian]

Wives still take their husbands name, none so blind...

I should have realised if we want to understand the bible we just have to read our own customs back into it.
Gen_3:20 The man called his wife's name Mrs Adam, because she was the mother of all living.
Gen 17:15 And God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Mrs Abraham shall be her name.

No, that's your job, it probably never occurred to you that a standard exists apart from you private interpretation.

I just don't claim other people's private interpretation must be the authoritative standard because they happen to agree with me. Do you seriously think Tregelles is our standard because he added his own opinions into his translation of Gesenius?

 

[Assyrian]

Come on gluadys, you know are aware of the definition of Adam and it means the first parent of humanity. Now you have descended to hair splitting semantics rather then acknowledging the clear testimony of Scripture.

You know better then that.

I thought Adam meant 'man' or 'red'. Could you show me the etymology that shows it means 'first parent of humanity' or where the bible says the name means the first parent of humanity? I can see where the same word is used for 'Adam' and 'man' or 'mankind' and how its etymological root could come from the word adm red or ruddy or dam meaning blood, but there is nothing in the word that tells us it means 'the first parent of humanity'. I know people think Adam was the first parent from their interpretation of scripture, but it isn't what the name means.

 

[Papias]

We've all asked mark many times to supply a reason why he repeatedly adds the phrase "first parent" to scripture, when it isn't in there. He continually ignores these requests and then goes on to continue to add to scripture. He does that and then accuses us TE's of not respecting scripture.

Papias

 

[Philis]

I thought Adam meant 'man' or 'red'. Could you show me the etymology that shows it means 'first parent of humanity' or where the bible says the name means the first parent of humanity?

I think he gets it from here:

Strong's G76 - Adam Ἀδάμ Of Hebrew origin אָדָם (H121).

1) Adam, the first man, the parent of the whole human family

​

 

[mark kennedy]

So tell me Papias, still believe that Adam married a subhuman ape?

We've all asked mark many times to supply a reason why he repeatedly adds the phrase "first parent" to scripture, when it isn't in there. He continually ignores these requests and then goes on to continue to add to scripture. He does that and then accuses us TE's of not respecting scripture.

Papias

Because that's the Lexicon/dictionary definition Papias, recognized by Catholic and Protestants alike. The only exception to that meaning being from modernists who pretend to believe the Bible, but do nothing but ridicule people for believing what it says.

You never asked me that question but since you are putting on one of your dramatic, pretentious, performances I'll tell you why. Because that is what the Scriptures teach regarding Adam Papias. I have a detailed exposition of the word and passages throughout the thread and there was an extensive treatment of 'original sin' and 'Adam' in our formal debate and you know it.

You remember monogenism right?

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (Humani Generis 37)​

You don't have a substantive argument, that's not why you make these bogus statements to a dark empty theater. Otherwise you would be focused on the Scriptures rather then resorting to a constant string of incendiary personal remarks made in the third person. It's not to reveal what the Scriptures teach regarding our origins, it's meant to bury it.

Strong's G76 - Adam Ἀδάμ Of Hebrew origin אָדָם (H121).

1) Adam, the first man, the parent of the whole human family​

Strong's Number G76 matches the Greek Ἀδάμ (Adam), which occurs 9 times in 7 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

• Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
• Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come .
• 1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die , even so in Christ shall all be made alive
• 1Cr 15:45 And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
• 1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed , then Eve.
• 1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived , but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
• Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying , Behold , the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Adam = "red" Strong's H121 - אָדָם 'Adam

1) first man
2) city in Jordan valley​

Strong's Number H121 matches the Hebrew אָדָם ('Adam), which occurs 9 times in 9 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV

• Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said , Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee , saying , Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
• Gen 5:1 This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
• Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
• Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
• Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died .
• Jos 3:16 That the waters which came down from above stood [and] rose up upon an heap very far from the city Adam, that [is] beside Zaretan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, [even] the salt sea, failed , [and] were cut off : and the people passed over right against Jericho.
• 1Ch 1:1 Adam, Sheth, Enosh,
• Job 31:33 If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom:

It means Adam, the first man, the parent of the whole human family. Both in the Hebrew form and the New Testament equivalent it means Adam, is pronounced Adam. It is not really translated into the English, it's transliterated, which means it's pronounced about the same way and means the same thing.

It's related to this form of the word:

Strong's H120 - 'adam אָדָם

Translated in the KJV authorized version:

• man 408 times,
• men 121 times,
• Adam 13 times,
• person(s) 9 times,
• hypocrite 1 time

I thought Adam meant 'man' or 'red'. Could you show me the etymology that shows it means 'first parent of humanity' or where the bible says the name means the first parent of humanity? I can see where the same word is used for 'Adam' and 'man' or 'mankind' and how its etymological root could come from the word adm red or ruddy or dam meaning blood, but there is nothing in the word that tells us it means 'the first parent of humanity'. I know people think Adam was the first parent from their interpretation of scripture, but it isn't what the name means.

Both are derived from this one because Adam was made from the earth and you know it:

We are all familiar with the name "Adam" as found in the book of Genesis, but what does it really mean? Let us begin by looking at its roots. This word/name is a child root derived from the parent דם meaning, "blood". By placing the letter א in front of the parent root, the child root אדם is formed and is related in meaning to דם (blood).

By examing a few other words derived from the child root אדם we can see a common meaning in them all. The Hebrew word אדמה (adamah) is the feminine form of אדם meaning "ground" (see Genesis 2:7). The word/name אדום (Edom) means "red". Each of these words have the common meaning of "red". Dam is the "red" blood, adamah is the "red" ground, edom is the color "red" and adam is the "red" man. There is one other connection between "adam" and "adamah" as seen in Genesis 2:7 which states that "the adam" was formed out of the "adamah".

In the ancient Hebrew world, a person’s name was not simply an identifier but descriptive of one's character. As Adam was formed out of the ground, his name identifies his origins.
Name of the Month - Adam By: Jeff A. Benner​

But Papias has no idea why I say Adam is the first parent of humanity even though I have shown him from the Scriptures and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church repeatedly. That's what the word means, it's a proper name and recognized as such by all Catholic and Protestant scholars and Papias and Assyrian know this.

They are trolling the thread because theistic evolutionists cannot argue from the Scriptures, for the Scriptures, because what they are teaching on these boards are contrary to the Scriptures. So Darwinians encourage guys like them to come in and disrupt substantive discussions of the Scriptures. That's really all they do and that is my biggest problem with theistic evolutionists, they do not represent a positive position, the entire focus is on those who believe in God as Creator as literally and explicitly taught in both the Old Testament and New Testament.

The truth is that had I decided that TOE had it right and Genesis should be taken as pure myth and metaphor I could have easily rearranged my theology to accommodate that variance in the interpretation. I wouldn't have been the first evangelical to do so and there have been many elegant expositions made of the requisite texts that dovetailed beautifully with the Gospel and the New Testament witness regarding our origins.

That is why I am so appalled at the fallacious deconstruction of the Scriptures by professing Christians. The tactics of theistic evolutionists are intended to appease secular academics and scientists who are dedicated to a categorical deprecation of anything remotely theistic or miraculous. This is the philosophy they defend on here and it's as wrong as it is unnecessary. Contradicting and conflating the Scriptures does nothing but serve the agenda of atheistic materialists. There is a much better way, I have always known that. You would have to learn, affirm and defend the Scriptures instead of attributing the testimony of Scripture to ANE traditions and cultures that are long dead and irrelevant. You would have to embrace the culture that these sacred texts are attached to instead of deconstructing time tested exegesis from the best Christian scholarship available. As a matter of fact it would be much better and far easier then what theistic evolutionists do on these boards and they probably would, were it not for the fact that they are simply poisoning the well. That's all these highly contentious and inflammatory personal attacks do and I promise you, there is a far better way.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

I think he gets it from here:

Strong's G76 - Adam Ἀδάμ Of Hebrew origin אָדָם (H121).

1) Adam, the first man, the parent of the whole human family
​

That is identifying Adam in the NT as referring to the character in the creation account, it is certainly describing Adam the way most people would recognise him, but if Adam in Hebrew doesn't mean 'parent of the whole human race' the Greek transliteration certainly doesn't.

I doubt Mark actually got the idea from there, if I remember correctly he was claiming the bible actually says this long before he turned to lexicons to support what he could not back up from scripture.

 

[Philis]

I have a question for both sides here:

On one hand we have someone saying that Adam is a person, the first parent of humaninty, and their best source for this is a lexicon.

On the other hand we have someone saying that Adam means humanity, and their best source for this is a lexicon.

Both sides seem to ignore what the lexicons say about the other position.

So then where do we go from here?

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

You remember monogenism right?

mark, your post again is a rehash of the arguments refuted in our debate, where you failed to show that the Catholic church forbids theistic evolution. It was explained there, in detail, why polygenism is irrelevant, as with your other repeated points. Here is the link for any who would like to read these:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7554304/

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

I have a question for both sides here:

On one hand we have someone saying that Adam is a person, the first parent of humaninty, and their best source for this is a lexicon.

On the other hand we have someone saying that Adam means humanity, and their best source for this is a lexicon.

Both sides seem to ignore what the lexicons say about the other position.

So then where do we go from here?

That's not what we have here at all. What we have is two forms of the word, one form often being used to speak of humanity using Adam's name. There is a reason for that, it's the same reason that Israel, Jacob's name is used to speak of the Hebrews. They are called Israel because the his sons were the fathers of the 12 tribes of Israel. Nothing I have told you so far has been in contradiction of the Scriptures or the Lexicon definitions for the terms in question. The problem is that theistic evolutionists can't admit the clear meaning of them because if they do they must admit that Adam is taught in the Scriptures to be the son of God (created with no human parents) and the first parent of the whole human family.

That's not being open minded, that's being a typical theistic evolutionist.

mark, your post again is a rehash of the arguments refuted in our debate, where you failed to show that the Catholic church forbids theistic evolution. It was explained there, in detail, why polygenism is irrelevant, as with your other repeated points. Here is the link for any who would like to read these:

Monogenism is irrelevant to whether or not Adam was our first parent? That is exactly what that doctrine teaches but you are going to dismiss it with a link to the argument you didn't make in the formal debate so you don't have to make it here, because you can't. You make a flagrantly false statement that you have asked me 'many times' about why I say Adam was the first parent of humanity claiming I have refused to answer.

The truth is that I have answered here, in that formal debate and every time the subject has come up. Do you intend to repent of your offense against me or continue in your folly?

Is that all theistic evolution has to offer, propaganda and slander? I'll tell you what, maybe I'm judging you too harshly, why don't you tell us all plainly what the Roman Catholic Church teachers about Adam with regards to monogenism and original sin? And Papias do us all a favor, spare us the spam tactics, no one is fooled.

I think it could prove relevant, that is if you can forbear your compulsions to resort to these inflammatory ad hominem fallacies. I'll be waiting but I won't hold my breath.

That is identifying Adam in the NT as referring to the character in the creation account, it is certainly describing Adam the way most people would recognise him, but if Adam in Hebrew doesn't mean 'parent of the whole human race' the Greek transliteration certainly doesn't.

Adam = "red" Strong's H121 - אָדָם 'Adam
1) first man
2) city in Jordan valley​

The Hebrew form of Adam most certainly does mean the first man, as does the transliteration of Adam in the New Testament. This is crystal clear and you know it.

I doubt Mark actually got the idea from there, if I remember correctly he was claiming the bible actually says this long before he turned to lexicons to support what he could not back up from scripture.

I was studying the Scriptures using lexicons and Strong's Concordance long before I was involved in these debates. You don't doubt it, you just deny it with the proof right in front of you which is the practice of all Darwinian zealots.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

I have a question for both sides here:

On one hand we have someone saying that Adam is a person, the first parent of humaninty, and their best source for this is a lexicon.

On the other hand we have someone saying that Adam means humanity, and their best source for this is a lexicon.

Both sides seem to ignore what the lexicons say about the other position.

So then where do we go from here?

Try to figure out how strong the basis the lexicons have for these ideas. Do all the different lexicons say Adam was the first parent of the human race? No. Do they says adam also means man, do they say it means people or the human race? Well yes. What is the basis for that? Adam is the Hebrew word for man, and that is how the word is used in lots of verses in the bible. What about Adam being the first parent of the human race? Is there anything other than tradition that actually tells us that, does it say it anywhere in the bible, is there anything in the etymology, or similar words in closely related languages that suggests it? No. It is just tradition.

But I have no problem with interpretation that say Adam was a real person called by God, even if he was created through evolution and he wasn't the only one alive at the time. But Adam the man called 'man' as a parable of mankinds creation and fall fits the story beautifully and fits how Paul interpreted Adam figuratively. Which is why I am happy to stick with that interpretation until someone comes up with a stronger argument for a literal Adam.

 

[Assyrian]

Both are derived from this one because Adam was made from the earth and you know it:

I know nothing of the sort. The words are certainly related but the connection is guesswork. Are people in the Middle east reddy brown because Adam was was made from red adamah earth? I thought it was because of melanin levels in their skin. Or did did the word for man and the word for earth share the same root meaning red and the story use the that common biblical metaphor of people being made by a potter, drawing on he idea of Adam being made of the dust of the earth to emphasise his mortality, being made of dust and returning to dust when he died.

We are all familiar with the name "Adam" as found in the book of Genesis, but what does it really mean? Let us begin by looking at its roots. This word/name is a child root derived from the parent דם meaning, "blood". By placing the letter א in front of the parent root, the child root אדם is formed and is related in meaning to דם (blood).

By examing a few other words derived from the child root אדם we can see a common meaning in them all. The Hebrew word אדמה (adamah) is the feminine form of אדם meaning "ground" (see Genesis 2:7). The word/name אדום (Edom) means "red". Each of these words have the common meaning of "red". Dam is the "red" blood, adamah is the "red" ground, edom is the color "red" and adam is the "red" man. There is one other connection between "adam" and "adamah" as seen in Genesis 2:7 which states that "the adam" was formed out of the "adamah".

In the ancient Hebrew world, a person’s name was not simply an identifier but descriptive of one's character. As Adam was formed out of the ground, his name identifies his origins.
Name of the Month - Adam By: Jeff A. Benner​

Not sure how reliable Brenner is as a linguist, isn't he another of those umm, engineers?

But Papias has no idea why I say Adam is the first parent of humanity even though I have shown him from the Scriptures and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church repeatedly. That's what the word means, it's a proper name and recognized as such by all Catholic and Protestant scholars and Papias and Assyrian know this.

I know it is the the traditional view, but it is really interesting that you can only claim to have shown it in scripture. I have never seen you actually show us where it says this in the bible.

They are trolling

the thread because theistic evolutionists cannot argue from the Scriptures, for the Scriptures, because what they are teaching on these boards are contrary to the Scriptures.

An odd comment from someone who hasn't managed to argue his case from scripture.

So Darwinians encourage guys like them to come in and disrupt substantive discussions of the Scriptures.

That's really all they do and that is my biggest problem with theistic evolutionists, they do not represent a positive position, the entire focus is on those who believe in God as Creator as literally and explicitly taught in both the Old Testament and New Testament. The truth is that had I decided that TOE had it right and Genesis should be taken as pure myth and metaphor I could have easily rearranged my theology to accommodate that variance in the interpretation.

I thought you biggest problem was you thought TE incompatible with your theology?

I wouldn't have been the first evangelical to do so and there have been many elegant expositions made of the requisite texts that dovetailed beautifully with the Gospel and the New Testament witness regarding our origins.

That is why I am so appalled at the fallacious deconstruction of the Scriptures by professing Christians.

Sorry there seems to be a disconnect between these two sentences. What are we doing so different from the elegant expositions you describe in the first sentence? Or Papias anyway my denial of original sin is probably to far out there for you.

The tactics of theistic evolutionists are intended to appease secular academics and scientists who are dedicated to a categorical deprecation of anything remotely theistic or miraculous. This is the philosophy they defend on here and it's as wrong as it is unnecessary. Contradicting and conflating the Scriptures does nothing but serve the agenda of atheistic materialists. There is a much better way, I have always known that. You would have to learn, affirm and defend the Scriptures instead of attributing the testimony of Scripture to ANE traditions and cultures that are long dead and irrelevant. You would have to embrace the culture that these sacred texts are attached to instead of deconstructing time tested exegesis from the best Christian scholarship available. As a matter of fact it would be much better and far easier then what theistic evolutionists do on these boards and they probably would, were it not for the fact that they are simply poisoning the well. That's all these highly contentious and inflammatory personal attacks do and I promise you, there is a far better way.

Have a nice day
Mark

The idea of God speaking to people in terms they understood, in terms of their cultural background, accommodation, goes back to Calvin and before him Augustine. What shouldn't God speak to people that way? But isn't this getting off the point which was about Adam?

 

[Assyrian]

That's not what we have here at all. What we have is two forms of the word, one form often being used to speak of humanity using Adam's name. There is a reason for that, it's the same reason that Israel, Jacob's name is used to speak of the Hebrews. They are called Israel because the his sons were the fathers of the 12 tribes of Israel.

Again this is pure guesswork. He could have been called Adam because God was creating mankind, remember Gen 5:2 where Adam was God's name for people not just an individual? You never answered my reply to your idea Eve to Adam name when they got married, Or the name could be a parable where God forming 'Man' from dust was really about God creating mankind.

Adam = "red" Strong's H121 - אָדָם 'Adam

1) first man
2) city in Jordan valley​

The Hebrew form of Adam most certainly does mean the first man, as does the transliteration of Adam in the New Testament. This is crystal clear and you know it.

I do know you usually start saying things like crystal clear when you haven't any better argument. If the name 'adam' is the same word as 'man' where does the meaning 'first' come into the word? That's rishon in Hebrew isn't is? How does adm rishon mean the same as adm?

I was studying the Scriptures using lexicons and Strong's Concordance long before I was involved in these debates. You don't doubt it, you just deny it with the proof right in front of you which is the practice of all Darwinian zealots.

Have a nice day
Mark

I am sure you were using Strong's concordance, it was a great tool, I found I needed more thumbs than I had, flicking back and forth through the references. But is this where you got the idea Adam was the first man or the parent of the human race. The idea is deeply rooted in Christian tradition are you sure you only stumbled across it thumbing through Strong's?

 

[mark kennedy]

I know nothing of the sort. The words are certainly related but the connection is guesswork. Are people in the Middle east reddy brown because Adam was was made from red adamah earth? I thought it was because of melanin levels in their skin. Or did did the word for man and the word for earth share the same root meaning red and the story use the that common biblical metaphor of people being made by a potter, drawing on he idea of Adam being made of the dust of the earth to emphasise his mortality, being made of dust and returning to dust when he died.

The word Adam in the New Testament means Adam, the first parent of humanity. There is really no linguistic are interruptive challenges associated with the word. What you are doing is rationalizing the clear testimony of Scripture away. Yea, it means red, or something a lot like that but it is the same of Adam, son of God. Now, the imagery being communicated is certainly of the earth, the same earth Adam was created from, the operative word here being 'created'.

Not sure how reliable Brenner is as a linguist, isn't he another of those umm, engineers?

That's consistent at least, never go for the substance always attack the person.

I know it is the the traditional view, but it is really interesting that you can only claim to have shown it in scripture. I have never seen you actually show us where it says this in the bible.

Sure you do, you just keep hammering away because that's what you do.

An odd comment from someone who hasn't managed to argue his case from scripture.

Nonsense, my argument is coming directly from the Scriptures with extensive support from credible scholarship and you know it.

I thought you biggest problem was you thought TE incompatible with your theology?

Their biggest problem is they are deconstructing it.

The idea of God speaking to people in terms they understood, in terms of their cultural background, accommodation, goes back to Calvin and before him Augustine. What shouldn't God speak to people that way? But isn't this getting off the point which was about Adam?

They did speak from a cultural background, the culture the Scriptures have always been attached to continues to this day. Of course you have to take the times and customs into account but no matter how many ways you slice it up Adam means our first parent.

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

I have made my argument from the Scripture, not that there was ever anything to argue against. One of the things that stand out with regards to the focus of theistic evolution is that it is simply attacking the beliefs of Creationists. One would think that there would be some insight or application, testimony or affirmation, expression or passion for anything other then an opposing view. Every now and then you would expect there to be a diversion into a favourite place in Scripture that speaks to them.

It never seems to happen and then when the Scriptures are expounded in these discussions there is always someone there to conflate and contradict the Creationist and very little else. I'm sorry you don't see the value in this kind of an expositional study that dig deep into the richness of the text and the difference facets and nuisances of the language.

Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 are vital doctrinal discussions in some of the riches expositions of the Gospel in Scripture. Issues like justification, sanctification, the Trinity, the Incarnation, resurrection and the mission of the Church till the final revelation are doctrines that go deep into semantics and highly sophisticated linguistic and grammatical constructions. The word 'Adam' on the other hand presents no such challenges.

There is one in every thread and their errors are never correct by theistic evolutionists. When a Creationist shares something from a scientific article or passage of Scripture they are always corrected, whether they are right or wrong. It would not be so bad if it were not all you guys did.

Have a nice day,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

That's not what we have here at all. What we have is two forms of the word, one form often being used to speak of humanity using Adam's name. There is a reason for that, it's the same reason that Israel, Jacob's name is used to speak of the Hebrews. They are called Israel because the his sons were the fathers of the 12 tribes of Israel.

Again this is pure guesswork. He could have been called Adam because God was creating mankind, remember Gen 5:2 where Adam was God's name for people not just an individual? You never answered my reply to your idea Eve to Adam name when they got married, Or the name could be a parable where God forming 'Man' from dust was really about God creating mankind.

Again, no it's not. Do you think Jacob/Israel in the book of Genesis is a mythical person because the Hebrews are called by his name to this day? Adam's name could mean the person Adam, it could mean Adam and Eve and it could be a word for humanity. It makes sense since Eve and the rest of humanity came from Adam and the context of the usage will bear this out. That account of the creation of Adam is not a parable, isn't anything remotely resembling such a comparison for one reason, a parable compares two things that are clearly indicated in the immediate context. Genesis is an historical narrative and all the ill conceived rationalizations will not change that.

I do know you usually start saying things like crystal clear when you haven't any better argument. If the name 'adam' is the same word as 'man' where does the meaning 'first' come into the word? That's rishon in Hebrew isn't is? How does adm rishon mean the same as adm?

I would have made a better argument if there was something left to argue. The clear meaning of the word has already been definitively settled and there was never any real question.

The problem isn't that the meaning is unclear, the problem is that you don't believe the account of creation. That's fine, your not required to believe it but don't pretend you don't understand the word 'Adam' or the clear meaning of the text. No one is fooled with the possible exception of you.

I am sure you were using Strong's concordance, it was a great tool, I found I needed more thumbs than I had, flicking back and forth through the references. But is this where you got the idea Adam was the first man or the parent of the human race. The idea is deeply rooted in Christian tradition are you sure you only stumbled across it thumbing through Strong's?

Dude, seriously, there were only about three maybe four references and the Blue Letter Bible can provide you with the Strong's reference, all you need is the number. I never do word searches on the meaning of names unless it's something like 'Israel' or 'Jesus', it rarely proves profitable. I went to the Strong's for the concordance because there are better dictionaries and lexicons to be found. There was never any real question about the meaning of the word but I do what I always do, I searched the Scriptures using the tools and resources that have served the church so long and so well. Sure enough! Adam means exactly what it says, it means Adam. I just wish some of the other words I have to look up from time to time were as simple to nail down.

Have a nice day,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

I have a question for both sides here:

On one hand we have someone saying that Adam is a person, the first parent of humaninty, and their best source for this is a lexicon.

On the other hand we have someone saying that Adam means humanity, and their best source for this is a lexicon.

Both sides seem to ignore what the lexicons say about the other position.

So then where do we go from here?

Oh, that is a tough question.

In Hebrew 'adam' is both a common and a proper noun.

As a common noun it means humanity and also "a man/ a person". As a proper noun it is the name ascribed to the "man" whose story is told in Genesis 2-3. (And also the name of a city mentioned once in the Old Testament, but that is irrelevant in this context.)

So the lexicon is right either way.

The Hebrew narrative text does not tell us which meaning is intended. The whole of Genesis 2-3 can be properly translated using "a/the man" rather than Adam. It is not until one gets to the genealogies that the context supports use of the proper noun.

It is not until one gets to the New Testament, especially Paul's letters, that Adam is used as a proper noun other than in a genealogy.

The crux of the disagreement though is not whether to translate the word as a common or a proper noun, but whether the proper noun refers to a historical individual.

A proper noun, of course, refers to a particular individual. But that individual need not have had a historical existence. And the individual so named can be representative not just of one person but a whole class of persons. A classic example is Pilgrim's Progress, where the protagonist, whose name is Christian, and is always depicted as an individual, is actually representative of every Christian.

Given the text we have, I don't think either view is inherently unreasonable. Our problem is that some people do think anything other than their own preferred view is not only unreasonable, but untrue and unChristian.

 

[Assyrian]

The word Adam in the New Testament means Adam, the first parent of humanity. There is really no linguistic are interruptive challenges associated with the word. What you are doing is rationalizing the clear testimony of Scripture away. Yea, it means red, or something a lot like that but it is the same of Adam, son of God. Now, the imagery being communicated is certainly of the earth, the same earth Adam was created from, the operative word here being 'created'.

If there are no linguistic challenges, perhaps you could explain how the word αδαμ means 'Adam, the first parent of humanity'. You have avoided this so far.

That's consistent at least, never go for the substance always attack the person.

If someone come up with a completely new way to understand Hebrew you won't find in scholarly sources, you really need to know if he knows what he is talking about. Check out the reviews of his Lexicon in Amazon.

Sure you do, you just keep hammering away because that's what you do.

Why not actually show us from scripture then?

Nonsense, my argument is coming directly from the Scriptures with extensive support from credible scholarship and you know it.

I know you claim your argument comes from scripture, repeatedly, it is just that in all this time I have just never seen you actually show it from scripture.

Their biggest problem is they are deconstructing it.

I have certainly deconstructed Original Sin it not being in the bible an all that, but Papias hasn't. Plenty of TEs agree with Original Sin, based on the idea of Adam's federal headship that long predates Darwin. What is you problem with them?

They did speak from a cultural background, the culture the Scriptures have always been attached to continues to this day. Of course you have to take the times and customs into account

So no problem then

but no matter how many ways you slice it up Adam means our first parent.

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

I have made my argument from the Scripture, not that there was ever anything to argue against.

See how I have highlighted in blue where each of the verses say Adam means first parent?

One of the things that stand out with regards to the focus of theistic evolution is that it is simply attacking the beliefs of Creationists. One would think that there would be some insight or application, testimony or affirmation, expression or passion for anything other then an opposing view. Every now and then you would expect there to be a diversion into a favourite place in Scripture that speaks to them.

It never seems to happen and then when the Scriptures are expounded in these discussions there is always someone there to conflate and contradict the Creationist and very little else. I'm sorry you don't see the value in this kind of an expositional study that dig deep into the richness of the text and the difference facets and nuisances of the language.

Exposition is great, but if you are using it to back up a claim, shouldn't the exposition actually show where the text actually says what you claim? This is a discussion forum how is it so terrible to discuss people's exposition and show why you disagree with it?

Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 are vital doctrinal discussions in some of the riches expositions of the Gospel in Scripture. Issues like justification, sanctification, the Trinity, the Incarnation, resurrection and the mission of the Church till the final revelation are doctrines that go deep into semantics and highly sophisticated linguistic and grammatical constructions.

Very true.

The word 'Adam' on the other hand presents no such challenges.

Also very true, unless you try to make the word mean something that simply isn't there like 'Adam, the first parent of humanity'. Then the challenge is to present the linguistic basis for the claim when there simply isn't any.

There is one in every thread and their errors are never correct by theistic evolutionists. When a Creationist shares something from a scientific article or passage of Scripture they are always corrected, whether they are right or wrong. It would not be so bad if it were not all you guys did.

Have a nice day,
Mark

We correct each other from time to time, but what exactly should we be correcting each other about in this thread?

 

[Assyrian]

Again, no it's not. Do you think Jacob/Israel in the book of Genesis is a mythical person because the Hebrews are called by his name to this day? Adam's name could mean the person Adam, it could mean Adam and Eve and it could be a word for humanity. It makes sense since Eve and the rest of humanity came from Adam and the context of the usage will bear this out. That account of the creation of Adam is not a parable, isn't anything remotely resembling such a comparison for one reason, a parable compares two things that are clearly indicated in the immediate context. Genesis is an historical narrative and all the ill conceived rationalizations will not change that.

Your argument is one from analogy, which only means it could be the case not that it is the case. Where your argument breaks down is that the descendents of Israel don't all have the name Israel, they are an Israelite not an Israel. But everyone in the human race is an Adam, a man. Makes much more sense that God called Adam by that name because he was creating the race of Man, because he was creating the first man, or because Adam was the first and representative man God chose to have a direct relationship with. It fits a parable of the creation of mankind beautifully too. Simply denying it is a parable doesn't make it so, and claiming if Adam is a parable then Jacob must have been mythical is simply a non sequitur.

I do know you usually start saying things like crystal clear when you haven't any better argument. If the name 'adam' is the same word as 'man' where does the meaning 'first' come into the word? That's rishon in Hebrew isn't is? How does adm rishon mean the same as adm?

I would have made a better argument if there was something left to argue. The clear meaning of the word has already been definitively settled and there was never any real question.

The problem isn't that the meaning is unclear, the problem is that you don't believe the account of creation. That's fine, your not required to believe it but don't pretend you don't understand the word 'Adam' or the clear meaning of the text. No one is fooled with the possible exception of you.

So no attempt to address my question. No you haven't go me fooled Mark sorry.

Dude, seriously, there were only about three maybe four references and the Blue Letter Bible can provide you with the Strong's reference, all you need is the number. I never do word searches on the meaning of names unless it's something like 'Israel' or 'Jesus', it rarely proves profitable. I went to the Strong's for the concordance because there are better dictionaries and lexicons to be found. There was never any real question about the meaning of the word but I do what I always do, I searched the Scriptures using the tools and resources that have served the church so long and so well. Sure enough! Adam means exactly what it says, it means Adam. I just wish some of the other words I have to look up from time to time were as simple to nail down.

Have a nice day,
Mark

Adam means Adam. I am glad we agree at last

 

[mark kennedy]

Why not actually show us from scripture then?

Alright, I'm finally through with you. There is a fair amount of hard headed skepticism on these boards but this is way too pedantic. Thanks for the exchange but I see no reason to continue wasting time arguing in circles with someone who has no principles or standards.

I'm not offended or even annoyed, it's just that your brand of skepticism lacks any tangible standard proof. This study was an interesting one for me but the reactionary responses of our two resident Creationist bashers has been tedious and overtly unproductive.

I wish you well Assyrian but you've exhausted my patience. Thanks for the exchange and I'll see you around.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Alright, I'm finally through with you. There is a fair amount of hard headed skepticism on these boards but this is way too pedantic. Thanks for the exchange but I see no reason to continue wasting time arguing in circles with someone who has no principles or standards.

I'm not offended or even annoyed, it's just that your brand of skepticism lacks any tangible standard proof. This study was an interesting one for me but the reactionary responses of our two resident Creationist bashers has been tedious and overtly unproductive.

I wish you well Assyrian but you've exhausted my patience. Thanks for the exchange and I'll see you around.

Have a nice day
Mark

Where is the hard headed skepticism or pedanticism in asking you to provide some scriptural support for the things you claim the bible teaches? Isn't that the minimum expectation in a discussion on Origins Theology? You post lists of verses that don't say what you claim and make no attempt at any exegesis of the verses to show they really mean what you claim. At least you tried in our discussions in the past. Sadly, you don't even do that any more. If you want to give up on the attempt that is fine, make what ever excuses you want to yourself about how it is really me being just being pedantic. It has been good talking to you, I only wish we could have got our teeth into a decent study of the texts and what they are saying.