Adam not the first man.

[BaconWizard]

It seems to be a widely held belief among Christians, or at least it appears so to non-Christians, that Adam was the first man, and that we are all decedents of Adam.

Yet, by reading Genesis it seems fairly clear to me that there were men already, before God made Adam. It reads to me, that God made KINDS of beasts which then existed according to their land, and also men. Whereas Adam, uniquely, he specifically crafted in-person as it were.

What's more, while there is a lineage through to Noah whereupon only the inhabitants of the ark were left after the flood, I don't really see anything to suggest that the bloodlines of non-Adamic people were not also ancestor to Noah: very clearly, there are entire peoples who The Bible does not detail, and nothing that I can find to suggest that all were direct decedents ONLY of Adam and Eve.

Any thoughts? I know nothing of doctrine on this subject, so I would like to know the official positions of various churches as well as any personal opinions that differ from the official line (if there is one)

 

[Joshua260]

It seems to be a widely held belief among Christians, or at least it appears so to non-Christians, that Adam was the first man, and that we are all decedents of Adam.

Yet, by reading Genesis it seems fairly clear to me that there were men already, before God made Adam. It reads to me, that God made KINDS of beasts which then existed according to their land, and also men. Whereas Adam, uniquely, he specifically crafted in-person as it were.

What's more, while there is a lineage through to Noah whereupon only the inhabitants of the ark were left after the flood, I don't really see anything to suggest that the bloodlines of non-Adamic people were not also ancestor to Noah: very clearly, there are entire peoples who The Bible does not detail, and nothing that I can find to suggest that all were direct decedents ONLY of Adam and Eve.

Any thoughts? I know nothing of doctrine on this subject, so I would like to know the official positions of various churches as well as any personal opinions that differ from the official line (if there is one)

You didn't cite the versus, but I suspect you are talking about how the bible says that God made man and woman, and then later the bible specifically named Adam and soon after Eve. If you read it enough you would see that there is a pattern that goes very far into Genesis, and it is that the bible will give an overall story and then a more detailed account which is where you will usually see the listings of begats and such. That's what is happening there...it's two accounts of the same creation story.

 

[ebia]

It seems to be a widely held belief among Christians, or at least it appears so to non-Christians, that Adam was the first man, and that we are all decedents of Adam. Yet, by reading Genesis it seems fairly clear to me that there were men already, before God made Adam. It reads to me, that God made KINDS of beasts which then existed according to their land, and also men. Whereas Adam, uniquely, he specifically crafted in-person as it were. What's more, while there is a lineage through to Noah whereupon only the inhabitants of the ark were left after the flood, I don't really see anything to suggest that the bloodlines of non-Adamic people were not also ancestor to Noah: very clearly, there are entire peoples who The Bible does not detail, and nothing that I can find to suggest that all were direct decedents ONLY of Adam and Eve. Any thoughts? I know nothing of doctrine on this subject, so I would like to know the official positions of various churches as well as any personal opinions that differ from the official line (if there is one)

In which story? In genesis 2 God forms "the human" before he forms any animals.

 

[BaconWizard]

In which story? In genesis 2 God forms "the human" before he forms any animals.

Correction, you're quite right: Adam was before. But how I am looking at this:

He forms a single man "Adam", before animals. Not mankind necessarily.

In 1:24 he causes the land give forth animals according to type
In 1:26 THEN he makes humans in his own image
In 1:27 it is clear that there were both male and female
In 1:28 they are fruitful and there are lots of peeps doing their thing


However, before all of that happened:

In Chapter 2:05, he makes A man (Adam) singular, out of dust/clay and places him in the garden of Eden, which he makes grow.

Later he brings the animals to Adam for naming, and it's clear that Adam was created before they were. But it's not clear that he did not also make mankind separate from Adam and after the animals, which 1:24-28 has already told us he did.


Joshua, yes, I take your point that there's a formal structure and poetic quality which belies such a starkly literal interpretation. I am not necessarily sold on the idea, but doing a lot of comparing with other creation narratives and seeing if there's any commonality.

 

[ebia]

No, he only forms Adam before animals. In 1:24 he causes the land to make animals according to type In 1:26 he makes humans in his own image In 1:27 it is clear that there were both male and female In 1:28 they are fruitful and there a lots of peeps. However, before all of that happened: In Chapter 2:05, he makes A man (Adam) singular, out of dust/clay and places him in the garden of Eden, which he makes grow. Later he brings the animals to Adam, and it's clear that Adam was created before they were. But it's not clear that he did not also make mankind separate from Adam and after the animals, as for 1:24-28 Joshua, yes, I take your point that there's a recurring form which belies such a literal interpretation.

They are separate stories with different timelines - you can't merge the two stories together.

In genesis 2 "the human" is formed before the animals.
In genesis 1 the animals are made before humans - and birds and fish well before that.

 

[mmksparbud]

What is very clear is that you are taking the same story, told in different ways and making them into two or more different ones. The bible writers often told the same story in different ways. Placing more emphasis on one aspect of the story in one version. There is one time line---and it starts in Gen 1--"In the beginning..." That is the major time line, the days of creation. And then it is reiterated later in different ways, but the same story. It is the way of the written, and spoken language of that time. You can't take modern speech methods and apply them to the ancient way of narration.

 

[Sketcher]

I disagree that the timelines are separate. Genesis 1 is the order of creation. Genesis 2 is the role of man in creation - a more detailed look.

 

[ebia]

I disagree that the timelines are separate. Genesis 1 is the order of creation. Genesis 2 is the role of man in creation - a more detailed look.

It's not though. The order of things is different in the accounts, in order to allow each account to say what it wants to say. Trying to fit one into the other is a massive failure to properly take each account seriously for what it is. But that's the history of much "biblical" Christianity - making the bible fit preconceived assumptions.

 

[BaconWizard]

What is very clear is that you are taking the same story, told in different ways and making them into two or more different ones. The bible writers often told the same story in different ways. Placing more emphasis on one aspect of the story in one version. There is one time line---and it starts in Gen 1--"In the beginning..." That is the major time line, the days of creation. And then it is reiterated later in different ways, but the same story. It is the way of the written, and spoken language of that time. You can't take modern speech methods and apply them to the ancient way of narration.

If that is the case, how is it that they directly contradict each other?

 

[NorrinRadd]

Correction, you're quite right: Adam was before. But how I am looking at this:

He forms a single man "Adam", before animals. Not mankind necessarily.

In 1:24 he causes the land give forth animals according to type
In 1:26 THEN he makes humans in his own image

The word there that you are calling "humans" is "adam" in the Hebrew.

In 1:27 it is clear that there were both male and female
In 1:28 they are fruitful and there are lots of peeps doing their thing

Whoever established the chapter divisions as they appear in our English Bibles was a nincompoop. It's clear that the first 3 verses of chapter 2 actually belong with chapter 1.

However, before all of that happened:

This is pretty clearly an alternate account. It *can* be harmonized with the ch. 1 account, but frankly not without outside assumptions.

In Chapter 2:05, he makes A man (Adam) singular, out of dust/clay and places him in the garden of Eden, which he makes grow.

Later he brings the animals to Adam for naming, and it's clear that Adam was created before they were. But it's not clear that he did not also make mankind separate from Adam and after the animals, which 1:24-28 has already told us he did.

Usually those who harmonize the two chapters do so by taking ch. 1 as an overview and ch. 2 as inserting details. In regard to mankind, ch. 1 shows "adam" (mankind) as comprising both male and female, and both equally being the "image of God" and both equally holding "dominion." Ch. 2 shows adam consisting solely of Adam. Then God created various animals; harmonizing with ch. 1 would require this to be a localized re-creation, but that is no more of a stretch than assuming two distinct creations of A/adam.

Theologically, it is important within Xianity that there was only one "first man," that being Adam, because it was through the ultimate progenitor that sin and death entered the world. Christ is called the second and last Adam in the NT, because for Xians, everyone in the world is either "in Adam," meaning ultimately doomed by their sins, or "in Christ," meaning freed from that fate.

 

[BaconWizard]

The word there that you are calling "humans" is "adam" in the Hebrew.



Whoever established the chapter divisions as they appear in our English Bibles was a nincompoop. It's clear that the first 3 verses of chapter 2 actually belong with chapter 1.





This is pretty clearly an alternate account. It *can* be harmonized with the ch. 1 account, but frankly not without outside assumptions.



Usually those who harmonize the two chapters do so by taking ch. 1 as an overview and ch. 2 as inserting details. In regard to mankind, ch. 1 shows "adam" (mankind) as comprising both male and female, and both equally being the "image of God" and both equally holding "dominion." Ch. 2 shows adam consisting solely of Adam. Then God created various animals; harmonizing with ch. 1 would require this to be a localized re-creation, but that is no more of a stretch than assuming two distinct creations of A/adam.

Theologically, it is important within Xianity that there was only one "first man," that being Adam, because it was through the ultimate progenitor that sin and death entered the world. Christ is called the second and last Adam in the NT, because for Xians, everyone in the world is either "in Adam," meaning ultimately doomed by their sins, or "in Christ," meaning freed from that fate.

Hmmm. Interesting points.

If Adam can be taken to mean Man(kind) then could the "rib" be like saying "a branch" as of a family or species in modern language?

 

[BaconWizard]

It's not though. The order of things is different in the accounts, in order to allow each account to say what it wants to say. Trying to fit one into the other is a massive failure to properly take each account seriously for what it is. But that's the history of much "biblical" Christianity - making the bible fit preconceived assumptions.

For my own education, are you confident that your view is the official view The Anglican Church? Or indeed, IS there an official position other than what any one individual in authority might say when asked?

 

[ebia]

For my own education, are you confident that your view is the official view The Anglican Church? Or indeed, IS there an official position other than what any one individual in authority might say when asked?

It would be the mainstream view in most Anglican circles.

 

[mmksparbud]

If that is the case, how is it that they directly contradict each other?

I see no contradictions--what is it that you see? This method of telling the same story in 2 ways is repeated several times throughout the bible. Chapters and verses, and, for that matter, punctuation, are not part of the original manuscripts. Maybe that is confusing you?

 

[South Bound]

It seems to be a widely held belief among Christians, or at least it appears so to non-Christians, that Adam was the first man, and that we are all decedents of Adam.

Yet, by reading Genesis it seems fairly clear to me that there were men already, before God made Adam.

Your lack of verses to back up your claim is deafening.

I know nothing of doctrine on this subject

No kidding.

 

[BaconWizard]

I see no contradictions--what is it that you see? This method of telling the same story in 2 ways is repeated several times throughout the bible. Chapters and verses, and, for that matter, punctuation, are not part of the original manuscripts. Maybe that is confusing you?

Brief post from phone here so I am not going to go back and read without any punctuation etc until later.

So disregard if this is irrelevant, but as far as I can tell, mankind is created after the animals according to one past, and either mankind (I am advised it could be mankind and not just a man) before the animals in another. Both cannot be true unless two lots of man were made, or as someone pointed out earlier, two lots of animals. There is nothing in the text that I can see that gives preference to which.

If this apparent (according to me) contradiction cannot be resolved then I prefer to think that it is Man (Adam) and not the beasts that were especially created on a 2nd (but chronologically former) occasion with special, particular and personal attention from God.

The only other conclusion that I can see would be that the account is not all that accurate, such that the order in which God made man or beasts in 2 simultaneous accounts (one general, one more detailed) might differ.

However, you've already said (and I think someone else also) that it is in fact the translation or more accurately the subsequent "modern" treatment that cannot be trusted rather than the actual script. I will look at this when I have time, later today hopefully.

 

[BaconWizard]

Your lack of verses to back up your claim is deafening.

Ok, if you insist I will quote directly: apparently you not already know it an cannot look it up as easily as I can. I will wait for laptop access rather than dodgy phone interwebs.

No kidding.

You seem unable to enlighten me, or presumably and in the Christian Spirit you would have done so.

 

[BaconWizard]

It would be the mainstream view in most Anglican circles.

thanks. I am equally interested in individual viewpoints as well as the party line, if they ever differ, but I was not raised a Christian and anything I gleen is far from effortless but takes the concerted desire to find-out.

(Wasn't raised an atheist either, especially, before anyone gets the wrong idea)

 

[ViaCrucis]

I agree with ebia that these are different accounts telling very different things. They aren't meant to be "reconciled" together. They are separate, different creation stories with entirely different purposes.

As far as Christianity is concerned, as a matter of theology, it comes down to things such as this:

- All human beings are related, we are all descended from "Adam", whether that means a literal, historic Adam as recorded in Genesis 2 and 3 or more broadly an understanding that we are all of common descent. In other words there are no separate human families, we are all part of one human family.

- Sin, death, suffering, etc are realities we encounter in this world. There is a deep wrongness that we meet, an injustice to life. And this isn't something to be covered over or dismissed, but to be taken seriously. The problem of sin is very and actually real. We are a broken people and we live in a broken world. And this problem is present and real in all people, not just some. Everyone labors under sin and death, no one is free of it.

That is the theology of Adam and the Fall. That is what as Christians we hear and receive in these stories. Some of us take the stories to be literal-historical events, some of us take the stories to be not literal-historical; but nevertheless we receive them as true as they teach us about both the universal familiarity of man as well as man's universal problem.

All of which, of course, is taken and subsumed and restored in the Person of Jesus and His death and resurrection. Which is where the theological language of Paul that Jesus is the "Second Adam" and so forth becomes intelligible. Because in Jesus, says Christianity, the entire narrative history of Israel is subsumed, recapitulated, and brought to head in Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Joshua260]

Hey BW,
It's been a while since I noticed the pattern I talked about in my first post, but an easy way to see it is to perform an electronic search in some bible software for "generations of". This should direct you to many places where the bible restates the story, in a kind of lineage narrative. I found that it goes all the way to Jacob. Interestingly, it also includes the creation itself in this pattern.