Was Adam an historical figure?

[Iosias]

What are your thoughts?

 

[pshun2404]

The original male human is a part of the legends, traditions, and histories of almost all peoples though they know of him by different names. Our word Adam can mean man but also red clay, other names indicate other meanings. Interestingly, Molecular genetics has indicated a "Mitochondrial Eve", it appears that this fairly new science has indicated that all humans alive on earth today all came from a single HUMAN mother. The genetic link for the male does not appear until between 3,000 to 30,000 years later (according to their reckoning) which makes sense if their was a Noahic male person which would be the connective link to all males (who himself would have come from the original male).

So I say, yes...there must have been an Adam type person whether or not science can ever discover him. Remember, just because there is no extant evidence does not mean something never happened or did not exist...it just means we have no evidence at this time.

In His love

Paul

 

[Papias]

I voted yes, there was a historical Adam, a real person who was both the first human and the ancestor of all humans alive today.

This can be completely consistent with common descent, the evolution of humans from earlier apes, and all the scientific evidence.

After all, in any gradual transformation, there has to be a point that is called "first". If the room is heated from cold to warm, one can take one second and call that the first time the room was warm. In the same way, as earlier apes evolved into humans, at some point, an ape can be called the first human, and God can give him a soul. This is a common Catholic view.

As families spread, this ape/human would naturally be the ancestor of everyone alive today. That's the same reason why any one person alive a few thousand years ago is likely the ancestor of everyone alive today, if they had a few kids that survived.

Papias

 

[gluadys]

I voted yes, there was a historical Adam, a real person who was both the first human and the ancestor of all humans alive today.

Let's note though that neither Mitochondrial Eve nor Y-chromosome Adam was the first human.

And the first human would not only be the ancestor of all humans alive today but all humans that have lived and died between the first human and today's humans. Including Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam who are only the last common female and male ancestors of all living humans.

 

[gluadys]

What are your thoughts?

As I see it, Adam is a personification of the whole human species. As one of our hymns says "Lord, forgive Adam for Adam is me."

So, I would say that since every human being that has lived and who lives and who will live is a historical figure, then Adam is, of course, a historical figure----many times over.

 

[Aman777]

What are your thoughts?

Dear Tosias, Adam was a historic character because he was the first of the living creatures made. This gives human first place in the Creation because we are destined to have dominion over all of the other creatures made, in the future.

Some TEs believe Adam was just another evolved prehistoric man but that is UnScripural, and False. Adam was FIRST made. He was made on the same Day the Earth was made but Before the plants and trees of the 3rd Day, grew. (Gen. 2:4-7) The beings created from the water on the 5th Day (Gen. 1:21) and those creatures made from the dust at the beginning of the 6th Day did not appear for Billions of years after man was made from the dust of the ground.

Adam was made Before the Sun, Moon, and Stars, of the 4th Day. Noah brought the human intelligence of Adam to our Planet. Only God and Adam have the ability to know both good and evil. No creature who evolved from the water has this ability. That is WHY human civilization, on this Planet, can be traced to Noah. ALL humans on Planet Earth descended from Adam, the first Human. If Adam was not real, then none of us are human, for we inherited our humanity from him.

In Love,
Aman

 

[ChetSinger]

I believe Adam was an actual man. When I read Jesus' genealogy in Luke, or the gallery of faith in Hebrews 11, I see no distinctions drawn between the earliest men of contested historicity and later men whose historicity is assumed.

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by Papias

I voted yes, there was a historical Adam, a real person who was both the first human and the ancestor of all humans alive today.

Let's note though that neither Mitochondrial Eve nor Y-chromosome Adam was the first human.

​

Right, I agree.

And the first human would not only be the ancestor of all humans alive today but all humans that have lived and died between the first human and today's humans. Including Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam who are only the last common female and male ancestors of all living humans.

Right, I agree.

Papias

 

[CaraGrace]

I also believe that Adam was real, and was also the first person!!

 

[sfs]

The original male human is a part of the legends, traditions, and histories of almost all peoples though they know of him by different names. Our word Adam can mean man but also red clay, other names indicate other meanings. Interestingly, Molecular genetics has indicated a "Mitochondrial Eve", it appears that this fairly new science has indicated that all humans alive on earth today all came from a single HUMAN mother.

No, the most recent common female ancestor of all humans lived long after Mitochondrial Eve. What's (mildly) interesting about mt Eve is that she is the most recent common ancestor of all living humans by purely female descent (that is, mother to daughter, with no males in the line). In other words, her mitochondrial DNA is the most recent common ancestor of all living human mitochondrial DNA, since that DNA is passed down only by women. There's nothing surprising about her existence: there had to have been such an individual. The point of the study was estimating when and where she lived.

Every other bit of the human genome has its own most recent common ancestor. Mostly they lived much longer ago than mt Eve -- probably around 1 million years ago, on average, although the number will vary a lot from place to place in the genome.

The genetic link for the male does not appear until between 3,000 to 30,000 years later (according to their reckoning) which makes sense if their was a Noahic male person which would be the connective link to all males (who himself would have come from the original male).

That was the understanding until quite recently, when a highly diverged Y chromosome was found in a West African man; several similar Y chromosomes have been found since. This discovery pushes the most recent common ancestor for the Y to be much older than previously thought, and much older than mt Eve. (Note, once again, that this is not the most recent common male ancestor of all humans, but the most recent common ancestor by purely male descent.)

 

[Knee V]

I believe that he is real and historical.

 

[freezerman2000]

Other than the Bible,there is no mention of a person called Adam as being historically the first man.No oral or written history.I believe that Adam is a caricature of the first spiritual hominid..God DID say,let US create man in OUR image..did that person look anything like a Spirit,(which God IS),or did God endow that person with spiritual awareness?

 

[Assyrian]

That was the understanding until quite recently, when a highly diverged Y chromosome was found in a West African man; several similar Y chromosomes have been found since. This discovery pushes the most recent common ancestor for the Y to be much older than previously thought, and much older than mt Eve. (Note, once again, that this is not the most recent common male ancestor of all humans, but the most recent common ancestor by purely male descent.)

Didn't know that. Do you have any references?

 

[Assyrian]

I think the story of Adam and Eve makes more sense as a parable about the creation of mankind and how we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. In the NT, I think our traditional literal interpretation means we miss out on how they were actually interpreting Adam, who is a figure of him that was to come Rom 5:14.

Of course Adam and Eve could still be historical people who were being interpreted figuratively, it wouldn't change the figurative interpretation, and as has been pointed out, it wouldn't it isn't a problem with evolution.

Anyway, I voted no. I go with Adam being figurative.

 

[sfs]

Didn't know that. Do you have any references?

Here. Note that I didn't do a very good job of remembering the details: the Y chromosome in question was found in an African-American in South Carolina, not someone in West Africa. The the additional, similar Y chromosomes were found in samples from Cameroon, which is more Central Africa than West Africa.

 

[Aman777]

I think the story of Adam and Eve makes more sense as a parable about the creation of mankind and how we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. In the NT, I think our traditional literal interpretation means we miss out on how they were actually interpreting Adam, who is a figure of him that was to come Rom 5:14.

Of course Adam and Eve could still be historical people who were being interpreted figuratively, it wouldn't change the figurative interpretation, and as has been pointed out, it wouldn't it isn't a problem with evolution.

Anyway, I voted no. I go with Adam being figurative.

Dear Assyrian, I'm not surprised that you don't believe God's Truth literally, but in this case, your error is critical to the TOE. The Fatal Flaw in the TOE is that the human intelligence of today's humans did NOT evolve over long periods of time. It came suddenly when the Ark arrived in Northern Mesopotamia some 10k years ago.

Human civilization history destroys the idea that Adam was figurative, since today's Science is ignorant of How and When we changed from Ape to Human intelligence. Without a LITERAL Adam, we would still be chasing our food and living in Caves, literally. All of the descendants of Adam are humans. We became human the old fashioned way, by sex.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

And the first human would not only be the ancestor of all humans alive today but all humans that have lived and died between the first human and today's humans. Including Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam who are only the last common female and male ancestors of all living humans.

Dear Readers, Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam were NOT descended from Adam. They came forth from the water on the 5th Day like EVERY other living creature according to Genesis 1:21. IOW, today's Science has falsely classified prehistoric man as human. Since he did NOT descend from Adam, he was NOT human.

On Planet Earth today, humans have replaced the prehistoric people who were here when Noah arrived. It's because the descendants of Adam have a Superior intelligence to ANY natural creature which came from the water. Adam had an intelligence like God's. Genesis 3:22 Prehistoric man did NOT.

Adam was NOT the ancestor of prehistoric man.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Calminian]

Other than the Bible,there is no mention of a person called Adam as being historically the first man.No oral or written history.I believe that Adam is a caricature of the first spiritual hominid..God DID say,let US create man in OUR image..did that person look anything like a Spirit,(which God IS),or did God endow that person with spiritual awareness?

I wish I knew where you guys get your information from and who you're quoting for this information.

Josephus was a a 1st-century historian, he he certainly listed Adam as a real man. He of course had accesses to a myriad of historical documents to draw from and recorded things about Adam that went beyond what was in Genesis. Below is just a small example.

Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over, begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself. Now a woman is called in the Hebrew tongue Issa; but the name of this woman was Eve, which signifies the mother of all living. (Antiq. 1:34-36)​

Having said that, why would you need more than the Bible? If the Bible said he was a man, why would not not believe that? Think of the things Abraham the father of our faith believed, and the risks he took for these beliefs. And yet we can't even believe the simple revelation that Adam was a man as scripture says?

 

[Assyrian]

I wish I knew where you guys get your information from and who you're quoting for this information.

Josephus was a a 1st-century historian, he he certainly listed Adam as a real man. He of course had accesses to a myriad of historical documents to draw from and recorded things about Adam that went beyond what was in Genesis. Below is just a small example.

Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over, begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself. Now a woman is called in the Hebrew tongue Issa; but the name of this woman was Eve, which signifies the mother of all living. (Antiq. 1:34-36)​

Having said that, why would you need more than the Bible? If the Bible said he was a man, why would not not believe that? Think of the things Abraham the father of our faith believed, and the risks he took for these beliefs. And yet we can't even believe the simple revelation that Adam was a man as scripture says?

The key phrase her is that Moses 'begins to talk philosophically'. In first century terminology, that means Moses was giving his teaching in allegorical form rather than as a literal description.

 

[janxharris]

I voted yes, there was a historical Adam, a real person who was both the first human and the ancestor of all humans alive today.

This can be completely consistent with common descent, the evolution of humans from earlier apes, and all the scientific evidence.

After all, in any gradual transformation, there has to be a point that is called "first". If the room is heated from cold to warm, one can take one second and call that the first time the room was warm. In the same way, as earlier apes evolved into humans, at some point, an ape can be called the first human, and God can give him a soul. This is a common Catholic view.

As families spread, this ape/human would naturally be the ancestor of everyone alive today. That's the same reason why any one person alive a few thousand years ago is likely the ancestor of everyone alive today, if they had a few kids that survived.

Papias

Except that Genesis have zero allusion to machro-evolution.