Was Adam an historical figure?

[janxharris]

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

Genesis has it that Adam was created on day six.

 

[gluadys]

Except that Genesis have zero allusion to machro-evolution.

The Bible is not a science text.
It has no allusion to gravity or galaxies, bacteria or photosynthesis either.

 

[freezerman2000]

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 He of course had accesses to a myriad of historical documents to draw from and recorded things about Adam that went beyond what was in Genesis.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?

Talking philosophically..I take that as being allegorical.
Where is the rest of the supposed "myriad"of evidence and what are your sources..

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>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.

Janx:>>

Genesis has it that Adam was created on day six.

Dear Janx, Man was "formed" on the 3rd Day according to Genesis 2:4-7. He was "created in God's Image" or born again Spiritually, on the 6th Day. Adam was created Eternally on the 6th Day. Like ALL born again Christians, Adam was first made physically, and then later Spiritually.

1Cr 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is Spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is Spiritual.

The time when Adam & Eve were created Spiritually is interesting. It was AFTER Cain killed Abel. Genesis 5:1-2

In Love,
Aman

 

[Calminian]

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.

But that was just a small excerpt from what Josephus reported. It's from Josephus that get the tradition that Adam and Eve had 56 children, for instance.

But regardless, if it's in scripture why do you doubt it? I'm just amazed how little you trust God. Seems you'll believe in anything except what God says.

 

[Calminian]

Talking philosophically..I take that as being allegorical.
Where is the rest of the supposed "myriad"of evidence and what are your sources..

So you think Josephus was speaking allegorically? Where is your evidence for that?? That's just silly, just as silly as trying to allegorize scriptural revelation about Adam.

So you've got Adam mentioned in several books of the Bible (the most well preserved historical documents in the world), plus mentioned as a real person by Josephus who had access to a myriad of historical records before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Seems God's given you plenty of evidence, you just choose not to believe. But don't blame it on reason.

 

[freezerman2000]

Well,golly gee..I wonder where Josephus got HIS information..and why the sources of that information is nowhere to be found?
I'm happy using the mind that God gave me..thank you!

 

[freezerman2000]

So you think Josephus was speaking allegorically? Where is your evidence for that?? That's just silly, just as silly as trying to allegorize scriptural revelation about Adam.

So you've got Adam mentioned in several books of the Bible (the most well preserved historical documents in the world), plus mentioned as a real person by Josephus who had access to a myriad of historical records before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Seems God's given you plenty of evidence, you just choose not to believe. But don't blame it on reason.

Where are the history books..not religious texts.. that tell of Adam being the first man?
How do you know Jo had 'myriads"of sources?What were they..
I just did some research on him,and there was no mention of "a myriad"of resources..
Did you know that Jo was a traitor to his own people? He has been called the "Benedict Arnold"of the Battle of Jotapata,or in Hebrew,Yodfat..
Yodfat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Calminian]

Where are the history books..not religious texts.. that tell of Adam being the first man?

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews. This is a secular non-christian historian. I would also recommend the Bible as a set of actual historical books, in fact the most well-preserved historical books on the planet. It would serve you well to do some research on all the archeological finds that bear (or is it bare?) out the historicity of the Bible.

How do you know Jo had 'myriads"of sources?...

You seriously need to do some reading. Read about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. This is not a biblical story, so you don't have to worry. As with most wars and battles, books and other cultural possessions get destroyed. But Josephus was a real person, and was a real historian. And he wasn't even a christian!

Seems you're really looking for a reason not to believe. I can't cure that.

 

[freezerman2000]

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews. I would also recommend the Bible as a set of actual historical books, in fact the most preserved historical books in existence. It would serve you well to do some research on all the archeological finds that bear (or is it bare?) out the historicity of the Bible.



You seriously need to do some reading. Read about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. This is not a biblical story, so you don't have to worry. As with most wars and battles, books and other cultural possessions get destroyed. But Josephus was a real person, and was a real historian. And he wasn't even a christian!

Seems you're really looking for a reason not to believe. I can't cure that.

Jerusalem was sacked in 70..Antiquities was written in 94..if the city had been destroyed,where did his knowledge of A&E come from?
Those documents would have been destroyed.

Then stop trying to convert me to your particular way of seeing things..BTW,I threw away my blinders a long time ago..

 

[Calminian]

Jerusalem was sacked in 70..Antiquities was written in 94..if the city had been destroyed,where did his knowledge of A&E come from?
Those documents would have been destroyed.

Yes but surely you agree he was a historian before this. He didn't just suddenly become a historian immediately after 70 AD. Josephus lived on the other side of that war, and therefore had the advantage of having access to the the records kept by his people before they were destroyed.

Then stop trying to convert me to your particular way of seeing things....

Well gee I could say the same thing about you. You started this whole topic. I was just responding to you and the blind statements you're putting out there.

 

[freezerman2000]

Yes but surely you agree he was a historian before this. He didn't just suddenly become a historian immediately after 70 AD. Josephus lived on the other side of that war, and therefore had the advantage of having access to the the records kept by his people before they were destroyed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------He didn't start writing history until AFTER he was captured by the Romans..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well gee I could say the same thing about you. You started this whole topic. I was just responding to you and the blind statements you're putting out there.

Originally Posted by Calminian
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks like YOU were the one who started in on me,sorry to burst your bubble!

 

[Calminian]

Originally Posted by Calminian
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks like YOU were the one who started in on me,sorry to burst your bubble!

Yes, and this was a response to your claim that there were no histories outside of the Bible that reported Adam to be a real person. I refuted your belief by citing Josephus. Then you whined that I was trying to convert you over to my kind of thinking yada yada yada........

 

[freezerman2000]

Yes, and this was a response to your claim that there were no histories outside of the Bible that reported Adam to be a real person. I refuted your belief by citing Josephus. Then you whined that I was trying to convert you over to my kind of thinking yada yada yada........

And so on and so forth..I'm done with ya.

 

[Assyrian]

But that was just a small excerpt from what Josephus reported.

I don't see how that makes any difference if Josephus considered the story of Adam as allegorical.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.i.html
I exhort, therefore, my readers to examine this whole undertaking in that view; for thereby it will appear to them, that there is nothing therein disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love to mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly.
​

It's from Josephus that get the tradition that Adam and Eve had 56 children, for instance.

That reference actually comes from a footnote added in the 1737 Works of Josephus, not from the text itself.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.ii.ii.html see note [40].

But regardless, if it's in scripture why do you doubt it? I'm just amazed how little you trust God. Seems you'll believe in anything except what God says.

God loves to speak to us in parables and metaphors, how is it not trusting God, not believing him, and doubting scripture, to try to understand what God is saying? It is Paul who tells us he interpreted Adam figuratively. Was Paul doubting God when he wrote that Adam was a figure of the one who was to come Rom 5:14?

 

[gluadys]

But regardless, if it's in scripture why do you doubt it? I'm just amazed how little you trust God. Seems you'll believe in anything except what God says.

But I am not doubting it. I am believing it, as Josephus did, philosophically or allegorically. How is that not belief? How is that not trusting God?

What basis do you have for saying that believing scripture allegorically --which was the default mode of interpreting scripture for nearly 1500 years of Christian history--is not belief, but doubt?

So you think Josephus was speaking allegorically? Where is your evidence for that?? That's just silly, just as silly as trying to allegorize scriptural revelation about Adam.

How about Josephus own words? Is it not just as silly to literalize what is intended as figurative? Which scriptural revelation of Adam is intended to be literal history? How do you know that?

What makes "literal history" a more trustworthy mode of revelation than "inspired allegory"? Why do you doubt scriptural allegory?

Yes but surely you agree he was a historian before this. He didn't just suddenly become a historian immediately after 70 AD. Josephus lived on the other side of that war, and therefore had the advantage of having access to the the records kept by his people before they were destroyed.

Why should I agree that he was a historian before he wrote the Antiquities? If he had written history previously, there might be a case for that. But we have no evidence of any other historical work by Josephus. It is certainly not unknown that a person turns to a different type of pursuit in his old age than he followed earlier in life. All we know of his earlier life is that he was a soldier and then a traitor who made himself useful to the Romans.

We can be thankful that he did turn to the Romans or otherwise the Antiquities would never have been written.

But we neither know what records were held in the Temple nor do we know that Josephus had made any study of them. We do know that he had no access to them at the time he wrote the Antiquities.

 

[Calminian]

But I am not doubting it. I am believing it, as Josephus did, philosophically or allegorically. How is that not belief? How is that not trusting God?

Please share you evidence that Josephus did not believe this was actual history.

What basis do you have for saying that believing scripture allegorically --which was the default mode of interpreting scripture for nearly 1500 years of Christian history--is not belief, but doubt?

The early church believe almost unanimously that Genesis was actual history. They also believed there was allegorical meanings as well. But they never believed Genesis was allegory and not history as you do.

Now Josephus was asked to write a history, not an allegory. He called himself a historian, not an allegorist. If you claim he was writing allegory, you need to offer some evidence.

But then again, you believe the same things about the Bible. The truth is, you simply don't trust God's word.

 

[Calminian]

I don't see how that makes any difference if Josephus considered the story of Adam as allegorical.

Josephus: The Complete Works - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
I exhort, therefore, my readers to examine this whole undertaking in that view; for thereby it will appear to them, that there is nothing therein disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love to mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly.
​

That reference actually comes from a footnote added in the 1737 Works of Josephus, not from the text itself.
Josephus: The Complete Works - Christian Classics Ethereal Library see note [40]....

I'm now following what you think this quote means. Where does Josephus say he believed Adam was allegory and not historical?

You guys should actually read Josephus. It think you'll find him quite interesting. For instance, he believed the table of nations to be totally literal, and explained which nations came from which descendants. And frankly there's no way to read his works and things he was speaking of allegorical stories.

I think the heart of the matter is obvious. You're real stumbling block is the Bible. People just struggle to believe God's revelation. It's part of our fallen nature.

 

[ChetSinger]

...You guys should actually read Josephus. It think you'll find him quite interesting. For instance, he believed the table of nations to be totally literal, and explained which nations came from which descendants.

Absolutely +1.

 

[gluadys]

Please share you evidence that Josephus did not believe this was actual history.

Oh, I am sure he believed there was an actual history that included an actual individual Adam. It doesn't follow that he believed the accounts were anything other than what he called them (according to the paragraph cited by Freezerman2000 in post 23)--namely, philosophy.

The early church believe almost unanimously that Genesis was actual history. They also believed there was allegorical meanings as well. But they never believed Genesis was allegory and not history as you do.

They also believed the allegorical meanings were where the real teaching of Genesis is. Naturally they also believed they were history. After all, allegory has to be allegory of something real. And they had no information that would challenge the history behind the allegory.

I don't believe the creation accounts describe actual history because creation itself tells us it can't be so. But I do believe, as the Church Fathers and many later interpreters did, that the allegory is where the important teaching is. So I consider it a slander to say that I don't believe Genesis or don't trust what God is telling us.

But then again, you believe the same things about the Bible. The truth is, you simply don't trust God's word.

I trust God's Word more than the words of interpreters who don't understand either literature or science.