Adam is explicitly a metaphorical reference, the word "adam" means "man" in Hebrew

[Assyrian]

I think we'll just have to disagree on this. Peace.

Cheers ChetSinger

 

[yeshuasavedme]

People think adam is a name, but it is not. It is just the Hebrew word for mankind.

You got it backwards.
"Adam" is the name God gave His first male and female human being creation.
Genesis 5:2 Male and female made He them, and called their name Adam...

There is a second human being creation, and the Firstborn of that New Man Creation flesh is "Israel", and He is Christ, the Living Spirit, come in flesh of second human being creation as Kinsman/Redeemer of all the Adam brothers of His flesh creation. All His adopted "seed" are then named "ISrael" -His New Man name- at the time of the regeneration of their flesh into His image.
Isaiah 49: "YHWH called my name, Israel"...
49 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother [Jerusalem above/Zion of the heavenlies] hath he made mention of my name.
2 And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;
3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.




Sirach 36:14 14 Have mercy on thy people, upon whom thy name is invoked:

 

[yeshuasavedme]

In Romans he Paul repeatedly identifies Adam as "one man". This, combined with the genealogies in Genesis and Luke, indicate to me that he was, in fact, "one man".

Yep.
Adam is the name YHWH gave to the firstborn of our human being race, which He made one flesh, one bone, one blood, and one spirit, and made male and female.

Genesis 5:2 Male and female made He them, and called their name Adam

Malachi 2:15 Wherefore did He make them one, having the residue/remnant of the [Adam creation] spirit? -because He sought a godly, seed[/sons of God -of the Adam kind].

Acts 17: He has made all nations/peoples/tribes/ethnic groups one blood...
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,..

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman/ishyah, because she was taken out of Man/ish.

2Sa 5:1
Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold, we [are] thy bone and thy flesh.
Gen 29:14 And Laban said to him, Surely thou [art] my bone and my flesh. And he abode with him the space of a month.



one flesh
one bone
one blood
one spirit
made male and female
one kind,
born into our being from our first father's seed [created in his loins], and nurtured in the womb of the mother of our kind, who was built from the flesh and bone, by the Adam spirit/life force of our first father's Adam spirit, flesh, and bone and blood.
Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife/ishyah name "Eve/חוה Chavvah " em/mother חי chay/living

 

[Calminian]

Yep.
Adam is the name YHWH gave to the firstborn of our human being race, which He made one flesh, one bone, one blood, and one spirit, and made male and female.

Genesis 5:2 Male and female made He them, and called their name Adam

The King James is the only version you'll find making this mistake. All other version translate the word correctly—man or mankind or sometimes human.

You're stil stuck on this same mistake of trying to translate the hebrew adam as Adam a formal name in english. The simple truth is the first man bore the name of the race he would father. He was known as Man or even Human. This is very common as descendants often bare the name of an ancient forefather. Semites—descendants of Shem, hebrews descendants of Eber, Canaanites descendants of Canaan. But all men descend from Man, thus we are called human or mankind.

Eve was not known formally as Man or Adam. She was Eve. Though she was from man, she obtained her own separate formal name. Only the first man bore the general name for mankind as his formal name. Or more correctly we bare his name as we are all adamites or descendants of Man, or sons of Man.

There's no mystery. It's a very simple concept.

People think adam is a name, but it is not. It is just the Hebrew word for mankind.

You got it backwards.

No you got it backward.

FWG, you are correct. Hey we agree on something.

Frankly, I kind of wish the english versions never transliterated Man (the first human) into the formal name Adam. It does get a little confusing. His name was Man, and we are also called man as we are his descendants. Maybe we should be called manites!

Thus when we come across the hebrew term adam, it's usually referring to his descendants and properly translated, man.

Now of course I don't agree with the idea that this somehow makes the first man a metaphor, but you are correct that the first man was named, Man.

 

[Calminian]

Without a definite article you are correct.

However, Genesis uses the definite article ('ha' in Hebrew), 'the man' to refer to Adam specifically.

In Genesis 1:27, 28 it is even more precise by adding the particle as well, 'et ha adam', literally 'this the man' or 'this man.' This same phrase is also used in 2:15,

I'll give this a bump as well.

Steve, do you ever wish like me the transliterated name Adam was never created for english translations? Man and Eve works fine for me. Just a thought.

 

[Assyrian]

The King James is the only version you'll find making this mistake. All other version translate the word correctly—man or mankind or sometimes human.

It is certainly true that most modern translations say man or mankind, But the CEV, Green's Literal, the RV and WEB say Adam. So do Jewish versions like the Leeser, JPS, CJB and OJB. The Amplified predictably has both.

It isn't actually mistake to say Adam, the Hebrew has both meanings since Adam's name means Man or Mankind. Using the name Adam is problematic because Gen 5:2 says it was God's name for male and female, not just the man he moulded from clay. This is why most modern translations opt for 'man' or 'mankind'. The trouble with that is unlike the verses where God calls the light 'Day' and the darkness 'Night' or God call the dry land 'Earth' and called the waters 'Seas', in Genesis 5:2 we are told the Hebrew adm was an actual name. Gen 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name "Adam".

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The King James is the only version you'll find making this mistake. All other version translate the word correctly—man or mankind or sometimes human.

You're stil stuck on this same mistake of trying to translate the hebrew adam as Adam a formal name in english. The simple truth is the first man bore the name of the race he would father. He was known as Man or even Human. This is very common as descendants often bare the name of an ancient forefather. Semites—descendants of Shem, hebrews descendants of Eber, Canaanites descendants of Canaan. But all men descend from Man, thus we are called human or mankind.

Eve was not known formally as Man or Adam. She was Eve. Though she was from man, she obtained her own separate formal name. Only the first man bore the general name for mankind as his formal name. Or more correctly we bare his name as we are all adamites or descendants of Man, or sons of Man.

There's no mystery. It's a very simple concept.



No you got it backward.

FWG, you are correct. Hey we agree on something.

Frankly, I kind of wish the english versions never transliterated Man (the first human) into the formal name Adam. It does get a little confusing. His name was Man, and we are also called man as we are his descendants. Maybe we should be called manites!

Thus when we come across the hebrew term adam, it's usually referring to his descendants and properly translated, man.

Now of course I don't agree with the idea that this somehow makes the first man a metaphor, but you are correct that the first man was named, Man.

Adam is the name of the male and the female, as to the kind.
The Creator states, in Genesis 5:2; Male and female made He them, and called/named their name "Adam".

The Adam Male is Hebrew זכר zakar, and is the sexual term for the procreating male. The Adam female is Hebrew נקבה nĕqebah, and receives and incubates the Adam seed.

"Man" is English, not Hebrew. The Bible's Hebrew word, is "Adam". -Why do you want the English "man" to be the original Bible word? That's backwards!

Besides Adam being made male and female sexual creatures to procreate the one Adam kind, The Adam is also an "Ish", and the female is the Ishyah, made from his own bone, blood, and flesh, because God sought godly seed from the one made two. Unlike the male and female beasts of the earth, who were brought forth from the earth in זכר zakar male, and נקבה nĕqebah, pairs, but not made "one" with a residue of the spirit of their kind.


Angels in heaven [at least the Watchers] are also created as persons called "ish" and were not made to marry, so they have no "ishyah".

Jesus, as the New Creation Man, also has an "Ishyah", which is also named "Israel", after His New Man name; and any born again Adam person, who is born into His One Living Spirit/Christ, has the promise of the adoption body, also; and at the change [when their body is elementally dissolved and reformed], the New body of adoption will have that New Man name written on their flesh - in the very DNA- and will no longer be "Adam" in human being kind flesh, but "Israel", in human being kind flesh.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

An Adam is either a male or a female person, but one created kind.
All kinds are one, in created pairs, brought forth from the earth and the water as male and female pairs, of the one kind each.
Adam got to name the kinds and gave them appropriate names based on his super intelligent powers of observation, but the Creator named the male and female "Adam", Himself.

 

[Calminian]

"Man" is English, not Hebrew. The Bible's Hebrew word, is "Adam". -Why do you want the English "man" to be the original Bible word? That's backwards!...

Why do I want man to be the original word? Huh? Did I say that?

In english versions, I want english words. In hebrew versions I want hebrew words.

Adam is a transliteration of the hebrew used in english bibles. But his english name would be Man. That's Adam's english name.

Now if we want to stick with the transliterated word, Adam, in english bibles, then perhaps, to be consistent, instead of using man elsewhere where a formal name is not intended, perhaps english bibles should use the term admite at those times.

You could say Eve was an adamite. The king of Tyre was an adamite. We're all admites.

What I like is consistency. But generally speaking I think transliterated words cause a lot of confusion in english bibles. We are men because our original ancestor's name was Man. That would clear up a lot of confusion for a lot of people.

 

[Calminian]

It is certainly true that most modern translations say man or mankind, But the CEV, Green's Literal, the RV and WEB say Adam. So do Jewish versions like the Leeser, JPS, CJB and OJB. The Amplified predictably has both.

I didn't realize all those versions did this. My issue though is consistency. We are all adamites since we are all from Adam. Eve was an adamite being made from Adam, as well as a female being made from a male.

If we're going to translate adam, adam, do it consistently. If we're going to translate adam, man, do it consistently. If the latter, translate eesh, male and ishshah female and the whole things works out, at least in my mind.

 

[Calminian]

...Adam got to name the kinds and gave them appropriate names based on his super intelligent powers of observation, but the Creator named the male and female "Adam", Himself.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but let me just explain it a different way.

Adam is the formal name of the first created man (eesh). This was the formal name given to him. Adam is not the formal name of the first created female (ishshah). Her formal name was Eve (Chavvah). She is an admite having come from Adam just was we are adamites having come from Adam. So all of us bare the adam, because we all come from the one who is named Adam. We also are all Noahites having all come from the one named Noah. And then some of us are semites, hamites or japhethites or mixture of the 3. But none of those are our formal names, per se. They are our tribe names or perhaps kind names if you will—mankind (adamkind).

But if you're are trying to say the first female was originally formally named Adam, you are incorrect.

 

[Assyrian]

I didn't realize all those versions did this. My issue though is consistency. We are all adamites since we are all from Adam. Eve was an adamite being made from Adam, as well as a female being made from a male.

If we're going to translate adam, adam, do it consistently. If we're going to translate adam, man, do it consistently. If the latter, translate eesh, male and ishshah female and the whole things works out, at least in my mind.

The problem is, sometimes Adam really is being used as a personal name while other times it can mean a man or mankind. The difficulty is figuring out which verses are which, the AV translates adm as the personal name Adam 18 times, the NIV 10 times, the ESV and NLT 2007 both translate it Adam 9 times but only agree on 7. Personally I think it is because Adam is a figurative picture of mankind that you cannot always tell the meanings apart.

I don't think your Adamite explanation works, you do have Israel meaning both the son of Isaac and the nation descended from him, but an individual descendant of Israel, yisrael, was an Israelite yisre'eliy (which is where we get the modern term Israeli). It suggests the name Adam comes from the word for a man (which in turn came from the Hebrew for red) rather than the word for man coming from Adam.

 

[ChetSinger]

Whatever Moses intended, I think by NT times "Adam" was considered to be a proper name of the first man. In particular, 1 Cor 15:45 uses both 'man' and 'Adam' to describe him:

So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living person”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Both 'anthropos' (man) and 'Adam' appear.

 

[Calminian]

The problem is, sometimes Adam really is being used as a personal name while other times it can mean a man or mankind. .....

That's okay, we have the same thing with other names as well. In the original hebrew it works out fine, so there's no reason why it won't work out in english. If context can guide the hebrew reader it can guide the english reader.

It's kind of like the word angel—another tiny peeve of mine. The hebrew reader reads the word meaning messenger and sometimes it refers to a heavenly messenger, and sometime a human messenger. Yet there's never a problem as context guides the hebrew reader. If english translations used the word messenger, there also would not be a problem. Context would guide. (Young's uses the translation messenger, BTW.)

Just say'n.

 

[granpa]

I dont think they called angels messengers.
I think they called messengers angels.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I didn't realize all those versions did this. My issue though is consistency. We are all adamites since we are all from Adam. Eve was an adamite being made from Adam, as well as a female being made from a male.

If we're going to translate adam, adam, do it consistently. If we're going to translate adam, man, do it consistently. If the latter, translate eesh, male and ishshah female and the whole things works out, at least in my mind.

The problems are with [some of] the English translators, and not with what the Word states. They are inconsistent, and cause confusion and are all the curse of God on the tribes at Bab-El.
Adam is not a translation. Adam is the pronounciation of the name of our being, and we have an Adam Firstborn father and an Adam mother. The Creator named us אדם Aleph Dalet Mem "A D M".

 

[Assyrian]

Whatever Moses intended, I think by NT times "Adam" was considered to be a proper name of the first man. In particular, 1 Cor 15:45 uses both 'man' and 'Adam' to describe him:

So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living person”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
​

Both 'anthropos' (man) and 'Adam' appear.

Yes 1Cor 15:45 is quite interesting the way Paul uses it. He is basically quoting the LXX
Gen 2:7 εγενετο ο ανθρωπος εις ψυχην ζωσαν
Gen 2:7 the man became a living soul.
However Paul throws in the word 'first' - because he comparing the first Adam with the last Adam, Christ.
He also expands the LXX's anthropos, man, to include both meanings of the Hebrew adm, both 'man' and 'Adam'.
1Cor 15:45 εγενετο ο πρωτος ανθρωπος αδαμ εις ψυχην ζωσαν
1Cor 15:45 The first man Adam became a living soul.
But I don't think Paul is following the convention that by NT times Adam had become a proper name, he is using his knowledge of the Hebrew to draw out the meanings. After all Adam is described as a name in Gen 5:2.

 

[Assyrian]

That's okay, we have the same thing with other names as well. In the original hebrew it works out fine, so there's no reason why it won't work out in english. If context can guide the hebrew reader it can guide the english reader.

It's kind of like the word angel—another tiny peeve of mine. The hebrew reader reads the word meaning messenger and sometimes it refers to a heavenly messenger, and sometime a human messenger. Yet there's never a problem as context guides the hebrew reader. If english translations used the word messenger, there also would not be a problem. Context would guide. (Young's uses the translation messenger, BTW.)

Just say'n.

Not sure the context is always that helpful, after all if it was clear to the Hebrew readers, it would be clear to the Hebrew translators of our bible, yet they can't decide which verses to translate as Adam or man. Perhaps the original language meant to convey both meanings?

I agree there are advantages in literal translations, though I use them sparingly. A problem with messenger is that the Hebrew readers had the concept of a divine messenger, in English we call them angels, so an ordinary reader picking up Young's wouldn't realise straight off the word messenger could mean both the human messengers and the spiritual beings. The biggest problem though is with idioms whose actual meaning is not conveyed in a word for word translation.

 

[Assyrian]

Since this post keeps getting bumped...

Without a definite article you are correct.

However, Genesis uses the definite article ('ha' in Hebrew), 'the man' to refer to Adam specifically.

In Genesis 1:27, 28 it is even more precise by adding the particle as well, 'et ha adam', literally 'this the man' or 'this man.' This same phrase is also used in 2:15,

The definite article doesn't stop Adam being a metaphor for mankind, it just means Adam is a character in a parable, referred to as 'Adam' or 'the man', but is actually about mankind as his name suggests.

Look at Genesis 6 where ha'adm and eth-ha'adm are used echoing the language of the creation, but talking about God destroying mankind in the flood.
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man [literally 'the man' ha'adm] was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man ['the man' eth-ha'adm] on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man ['the man', eth-ha'adm] whom I have created from the face of the land, man [this really is just 'man', adm] and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."
It is like the person who wrote Genesis 6 understood the metaphor of the creation of the man Adam as referring to God creating mankind, so that the flood is described as God wiping out the man he created, even though a literal Adam would have been dead by the time of the flood.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Slam dunk!