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

[Calminian]

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.

Trust me, you and all other english readers would be just fine, and be able to discern what type of messenger was being described. Hebrew readers come from all backgrounds as well, and they understand. Plus there's a reason why God uses the term "messenger." They are indeed messengers of Yahweh and this description gives us insight in how to understand them. English translation hide that insight from us.

Also, not all occurrences of the word means angel and sometimes the meaning is not clear. This should be an issue for the readers to work though, not the translators.

Now just to clarify I'm not against literal translations. This is just a tiny peeve against transliterated words in some specific cases.

 

[mark kennedy]

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

That's simply not true:

Strong's H120 - 'adam

1) man, mankind
a) man, human being
b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
c) Adam, first man
d) city in Jordan valley​

Adam's name can be used synonymously with humanity just as Israel is with the Hebrews, even though it's also a proper name. I don't know where you get that idea but it's erroneous. As a matter of fact, 'Adam' is always the person Adam from the Genesis account when used in the New Testament.

Strong's G76 - Adam

Adam = "the red earth"

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

Luk 3:38, Rom 5:14, 1Cr 15:22, 1Ti 2:13, 1Ti 2:14, Jud 1:14

Just as scientists rely on tools for their work when you study the Scriptures you need a lexicon, dictionary and/or a concordance. Next time try looking the word up first.

 

[Assyrian]

Trust me, you and all other english readers would be just fine, and be able to discern what type of messenger was being described.

Most would work it out, but you shouldn't have to work out a meaning that was straightforward in the original language, that is what translation is for. The word for a divine messenger in English is angel, in Hebrew it is malak, messenger. While malak also refers to human messengers, when the passage is talking about a divine messenger, shouldn't a good translation use the English word for a divine messenger, angel? You also have the problem that not every English reader will work it out. It is too easy to read things into a cumbersome word for word translation that doesn't convey the actual meaning of the original language. There is the story of translating 'The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak' into Russian, then translating it back into English and getting 'The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten.'

Hebrew readers come from all backgrounds as well, and they understand. Plus there's a reason why God uses the term "messenger." They are indeed messengers of Yahweh and this description gives us insight in how to understand them. English translation hide that insight from us.

I would have though the reason God used the term malak or "messenger" is that it was the Hebrew term for these spiritual beings. But angels aren't always delivering messages, and when they are, it is obvious from the text. It is much better for a translation to use the term angel so we know what the text is talking about, and if people want to dig deeper into the meaning of the words used they can start using the many bible study and language tool available, than go for a literal translation that doesn't convey the main meaning of the original language.

Also, not all occurrences of the word means angel and sometimes the meaning is not clear. This should be an issue for the readers to work though, not the translators.

If readers want to work through it themselves, they need at very least, to know there are issues to tackle in Hebrew and Greek. A decent bible with footnotes should point out passage where there is an issue in the translation that needs to be understood. Otherwise they are much better off with the best translation the experts in the language can come up with rather than a literal translation that so often fails to convey the meaning of the originals language.

Now just to clarify I'm not against literal translations. This is just a tiny peeve against transliterated words in some specific cases.

I agree it is a complex issue, with a lot of problems in the transliterated words. But often the transliterated words have long ago made their way into English as the normal English word for it. It is more of an issue when these term have taken on a life of their own, especially ecclesiastical words like Bishop, baptism, or Eucharist. Angel is not so bad, but cherub never meant a little pink baby with wings.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's simply not true:

Strong's H120 - 'adam

1) man, mankind
a) man, human being
b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
c) Adam, first man
d) city in Jordan valley​

Adam's name can be used synonymously with humanity just as Israel is with the Hebrews, even though it's also a proper name. I don't know where you get that idea but it's erroneous. As a matter of fact, 'Adam' is always the person Adam from the Genesis account when used in the New Testament.

I'm not interested in leaning ancient languages.
So I read the results of 1000's of
dedicated translators over the last 400 years.

Bible Search: adam

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not interested in leaning ancient languages.
So I read the results of 1000's of
dedicated translators over the last 400 years.

Bible Search: adam

I prefer to look it up in Vine's or Thayer's and find the instances of a word in Strong's Concordance. Not everything translates perfectly, Adam does but there are other words that are not so easy. At the end of John's Gospel Jesus and Peter are talking, Jesus asks Peter if he loves him. When Peter says yes I love you what doesn't come out is that they are using two different words. That will never come out in a translation.

We're talking about 8 references and despite that we get a thread that says it means mankind, which is simply not how it's used in the New Testament. In the Old Testament 'Adam' is often used for mankind but that only because he was the father of humanity.

No, I don't suppose anything is really lost in the translation, it's actually a transliteration so there isn't that much difference between the original and the way it's rendered in the English. That's not the point.

It takes minimal effort to find a dictionary that will tell you what the word means, even though if you let it mean what it says you wouldn't need it.

 

[Papias]

Is the name "Adam" the name of a real, single, individual, or a symbol of all humans?

While both views have been argued for on this thread, it 's worth pointing out that either view can be consistent with the consensus view of the evolution of humans gradually from chimp-like ancestors over millions of years, and with theistic evolution (aka evolutionary creationism).

If "Adam" represents all humanity, then Adam is the population at the time, consistent with "with Adam's fall, we sinned, all.".

If "Adam" is a single individual, then Adam is simply the first being in a population gradually transitioning from chimp to human to first cross the line to being human.

Both views are supported by various theologians.

Papias

 

[yeshuasavedme]

That's simply not true:

Strong's H120 - 'adam

1) man, mankind
a) man, human being
b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
c) Adam, first man
d) city in Jordan valley​

Adam's name can be used synonymously with humanity just as Israel is with the Hebrews, even though it's also a proper name. I don't know where you get that idea but it's erroneous. As a matter of fact, 'Adam' is always the person Adam from the Genesis account when used in the New Testament.

Strong's G76 - Adam

Adam = "the red earth"

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

Luk 3:38, Rom 5:14, 1Cr 15:22, 1Ti 2:13, 1Ti 2:14, Jud 1:14

Just as scientists rely on tools for their work when you study the Scriptures you need a lexicon, dictionary and/or a concordance. Next time try looking the word up first.

YEP.
Also, Adam is contracted from two words; "dam/ [red] blood" and "adamah/ground".
Hebrew word for blood is "דם dam", and the blood of Adam was red, and he was formed from the adamah, making the race that comes forth from him blood earth, in varying shades of skin color: in shadings of red, white, black, brown, yellow, green -and everything in between.
So Adam, himself, the firstborn father of our human being race/kind, was not red. That is a wrong assumption, because in the Enochian dream visions of the totemic imagery of the history of the world, Adam is white, Eve is black, Cain is black like Mama, Abel is red, and then, Seth was white like Papa, and the first one to come forth from his loins in his own color.
The children were always mixed in varying shades of skin color until after the dispersion of the tribes over the earth, which began at Bab-El, and the resulting isolation of gene pools over time, as they scattered more and more and the confounded tongues branched more and more, caused the tribes to become more and more genetically isolated.

 

[mark kennedy]

Is the name "Adam" the name of a real, single, individual, or a symbol of all humans?

While both views have been argued for on this thread, it 's worth pointing out that either view can be consistent with the consensus view of the evolution of humans gradually from chimp-like ancestors over millions of years, and with theistic evolution (aka evolutionary creationism).

If "Adam" represents all humanity, then Adam is the population at the time, consistent with "with Adam's fall, we sinned, all.".

If "Adam" is a single individual, then Adam is simply the first being in a population gradually transitioning from chimp to human to first cross the line to being human.

Both views are supported by various theologians.

Papias

There can be no question that Adam in Genesis and the New Testament is an individual, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate or even allow anything else. The statement that it's just a word meaning 'humanity' is absurd without a shred of legitimate Christian scholarship supporting it. Creationism and original sin are non-negotiable, foundational Christian doctrines the church has always and will always affirm and defend. In our time it seems as if it's permissible to think of Adam as a figure of speech but clearly, the writers of Holy Scripture never did and the Church never will.

Adam was the first parent of humanity and arguments to the contrary contradict the clear testimony of Scripture.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[yeshuasavedme]

YEP.
Also, Adam is contracted from two words; "dam/ [red] blood" and "adamah/ground".
Hebrew word for blood is "דם dam", and the blood of Adam was red, and he was formed from the adamah, making the race that comes forth from him blood earth, in varying shades of skin color: in shadings of red, white, black, brown, yellow, green -and everything in between.
So Adam, himself, the firstborn father of our human being race/kind, was not red. That is a wrong assumption, because in the Enochian dream visions of the totemic imagery of the history of the world, Adam is white, Eve is black, Cain is black like Mama, Abel is red, and then, Seth was white like Papa, and the first one to come forth from his loins in his own color.
The children were always mixed in varying shades of skin color until after the dispersion of the tribes over the earth, which began at Bab-El, and the resulting isolation of gene pools over time, as they scattered more and more and the confounded tongues branched more and more, caused the tribes to become more and more genetically isolated.

Also, please, everyone, note: All the kinds bear the name of their first male and female parents. In English, we say "deer; bear; cat; dog; mouse; whale; duck;...and so on and so forth: but each kind bears the name of the first parents which Adam named them [in Edenic/Hebrew], by his wisdom of their natures: skunk means "stink" in the Hebrew word Adam named it; giraffe means "neck", and so on and so forth, following the pattern the Creator established when He named Adam -both the male and the female- "blood earth".

 

[YeShallTread]

YEP.
Also, Adam is contracted from two words; "dam/ [red] blood" and "adamah/ground".
Hebrew word for blood is "דם dam", and the blood of Adam was red, and he was formed from the adamah, making the race that comes forth from him blood earth, in varying shades of skin color: in shadings of red, white, black, brown, yellow, green -and everything in between.
So Adam, himself, the firstborn father of our human being race/kind, was not red. That is a wrong assumption, because in the Enochian dream visions of the totemic imagery of the history of the world, Adam is white, Eve is black, Cain is black like Mama, Abel is red, and then, Seth was white like Papa, and the first one to come forth from his loins in his own color.
The children were always mixed in varying shades of skin color until after the dispersion of the tribes over the earth, which began at Bab-El, and the resulting isolation of gene pools over time, as they scattered more and more and the confounded tongues branched more and more, caused the tribes to become more and more genetically isolated.

LOL.....What a misunderstanding all of that is.


All races DID NOT, COULD NOT, come from one couple. Eve was taken from Adam so Eve was...just as Adam. She was not black.

The man Adam, "eth ha Adam," was the first in the line to Christ. He was NOT the first human on earth.

 

[ChetSinger]

LOL.....What a misunderstanding all of that is.

All races DID NOT, COULD NOT, come from one couple. Eve was taken from Adam so Eve was...just as Adam. She was not black.

The man Adam, "eth ha Adam," was the first in the line to Christ. He was NOT the first human on earth.

We're all brothers and sisters...should we be LOL'ing each other?

Here's a thought experiment: what if Adam and his wife were the first and only two humans on earth? Could our "races" have come from the two of them? I've read that if they were each mid-brown, and contained a specific combination of genes, then their immediate descendants could indeed range from quite dark through quite light. Only two skin-color genes are necessary to create a variety of different-colored children. And I know we have at least two.

One of the sources I've come across is here at How did different skin colors come about?

 

[YeShallTread]

We're all brothers and sisters...should we be LOL'ing each other?

You are right. I stand corrected and offer my apolgies.

Here's a thought experiment: what if Adam and his wife were the first and only two humans on earth? Could our "races" have come from the two of them? I've read that if they were each mid-brown, and contained a specific combination of genes, then their immediate descendants could indeed range from quite dark through quite light. Only two skin-color genes are necessary to create a variety of different-colored children. And I know we have at least two.

One of the sources I've come across is here at How did different skin colors come about?

No, for all races to come from one person, which Adam and Eve were, would be impossible. As written, there are no new things under the sun and that would be...a new thing.


The answer is contained within the meaning of "Adam," as this thread speaks of. It can mean Adam=mankind or, with the qualifier of "the man Adam/eth ha Adam" it refers to a specific man. This was the beginning of the line leading to Christ. All of the Bible is His-story.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

All races DID NOT, COULD NOT, come from one couple. Eve was taken from Adam so Eve was...just as Adam. She was not black.

The man Adam, "eth ha Adam," was the first in the line to Christ. He was NOT the first human on earth.

There is only one human being race named Adam. We are all seed come to fruit in our pre-ordained and pre-written season, according to the pattern recorded in the Book of Life, for our individual person to come forth in.

And God made all human beings "one/echad dam/red=blood" one kind/one being, and made male and female in persons/souls.

Really, you need to get a thinking cap on.
Cain was black, Abel was red, and they came from two parents who were black-Eve, and white -Adam.
Seth was the first white son, but that does not mean that all his seed were come to fruit in white skin, because he had black and red and white and in between sisters and nieces and maybe by then, cousins, to take as a wife; and all men are one red/blood, but many colors and hues.
Color in our one race named Adam is beautiful, and diverse, but all blood in our one race named Adam, is red.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood [Hebrew "dam" =red] all nations/ethnos/tribes of men/human being [persons] for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

 

[yeshuasavedme]

We're all brothers and sisters...should we be LOL'ing each other?

The female/Ishyah Adam person, was the clone of the male/Ish Adam person, and Adam thought she was quite desirable as a mate, for the Creator does all things well.
After that first male and female Adam kind מין /miyn persons/souls were built, the seed came forth as male/זכר zakar and female/נקבה nĕqebah, persons, individually, and paired off as ish and ishyah, to fulfill the command of the Creator in bringing forth godly seed/sons of God, of the Adam being/kind....but we all died in the loins of our first father, Adam, and come forth as ruined vessels and are not sons of God since the fall, and must be born again, into the Living Spirit/Christ, to be regenerated in bodies of flesh and be sons of God as we were created to be and written in the Book of Life to be, before the beginning of the world.

 

[ChetSinger]

No, for all races to come from one person, which Adam and Eve were, would be impossible. As written, there are no new things under the sun and that would be...a new thing.

It sounds like you're assuming all YECs believe a literal Eve was necessarily a clone. I don't think that's a well-agreed-upon YEC position.

Assuming she wasn't a clone, the link I provided explains how two mid-brown original parents could produce children both darker and lighter than themselves.

The answer is contained within the meaning of "Adam," as this thread speaks of. It can mean Adam=mankind or, with the qualifier of "the man Adam/eth ha Adam" it refers to a specific man. This was the beginning of the line leading to Christ. All of the Bible is His-story.

That's one conclusion. Another is the traditional belief that we all came from Adam. Myself, I think the traditional belief is clearly put forth by Paul in Romans and 1 Corinthians, which may be why it became the traditional belief.

 

[Fascinated With God]

If what you are saying is true then people of different races should not have significantly different genetic diseases, as consistent with only a few mutations being necessary to skin color difference. (I assume you must have a similar argument for the variation in Asian eyes.) But that is not the case, different races have significantly different kinds of genetic diseases.

Another thing that occured to me is how did people got to the Americas long after the Bering ice bridge melted?

 

[ChetSinger]

If what you are saying is true then people of different races should not have significantly different genetic diseases, as consistent with only a few mutations being necessary to skin color difference. (I assume you must have a similar argument for the variation in Asian eyes.) But that is not the case, different races have significantly different kinds of genetic diseases.

The link says that a wide variety of skin color can be produced without appealing to mutations, provided the first initial genes are properly chosen.

 

[Fascinated With God]

The link says that a wide variety of skin color can be produced without appealing to mutations, provided the first initial genes are properly chosen.

That only worseness your case, Chet. You already have a problem with being able to account for the extremely wide genetic diversity among humans, but now you are arguing that even less genetic diversity was involved. That is not going in the proper direction to make your argument stronger.

Also, how about Native Amerians? How did they get there?

 

[ChetSinger]

That only worseness your case, Chet. You already have a problem with being able to account for the extremely wide genetic diversity among humans, but now you are arguing that even less genetic diversity was involved. That is not going in the proper direction to make your argument stronger.

Also, how about Native Amerians? How did they get there?

I'm only talking about skin color, as described by the link. Apparently our variety in skin color could have been produced by an original pair of two mid-brown parents.

Or is that link wrong?

 

[YeShallTread]

There is only one human being race named Adam. We are all seed come to fruit in our pre-ordained and pre-written season, according to the pattern recorded in the Book of Life, for our individual person to come forth in.

All humans are of the human race but within the human race are many races. As there is a singular definition for fruit...there are many types of fruit and one type of fruit tree will not produce a different fruit. As
there is a specific definition for animals...there are many types of animals within that definition and an elephant will not produce a zebra.

One race within the human race will not produce another race. Never has, never will. And "God saw that it was good."

Genesis 1:11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yieldingseed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
​

And God made all human beings "one/echad dam/red=blood" one kind/one being, and made male and female in persons/souls. Really, you need to get a thinking cap on.

Hardly. All humans are humans but they are not one type of being. Perhaps you should put your glasses on?

Cain was black, Abel was red, and they came from two parents who were black-Eve, and white -Adam.
Seth was the first white son, but that does not mean that all his seed were come to fruit in white skin, because he had black and red and white and in between sisters and nieces and maybe by then, cousins, to take as a wife; and all men are one red/blood, but many colors and hues.

Sorry but that's a lot of hooey and totally unbiblical.

Color in our one race named Adam is beautiful, and diverse, but all blood in our one race named Adam, is red.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood [Hebrew "dam" =red] all nations/ethnos/tribes of men/human being [persons] for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

All living entities have blood...animals, humans, fish. Are we all the same?

Mankind was on the face of the earth long before Adam and Eve were placed in the garden.