Was Adam an historical figure?

[theFijian]

What are your thoughts?

I voted Yes, but not because of Genesis 1-3, rather because of Romans 5.

 

[mark kennedy]

What are your thoughts?

The Scriptures are clear that Adam and Eve are not only historical figures but the first parents of humanity. This requires no real exegetical skills and presents no expositional challenges, it says it plainly in both the New and Old Testament. This has never been a question in the Christian faith, it's only since the rise of atheistic philosophies like Darwinism that it has been rationalized away.

I voted Yes, but not because of Genesis 1-3, rather because of Romans 5.

The New Testament witness confirms the testimony of Genesis 1-3 in no uncertain terms. Adam can be used in the Old Testament as another name for humanity and often is, but that's for the same reason that Israel is used for all the descendants of Jacob.

 

[theFijian]

The New Testament witness confirms the testimony of Genesis 1-3 in no uncertain terms.

Good. Had someone suggested otherwise?

Adam can be used in the Old Testament as another name for humanity and often is, but that's for the same reason that Israel is used for all the descendants of Jacob.

I would love a discussion on Adam as our federal head, or Israel in eschatology and soteriology, but something tells me it would end up unedifying.

 

[mark kennedy]

Good. Had someone suggested otherwise?

Someone always does.

I would love a discussion on Adam as our federal head, or Israel in eschatology and soteriology, but something tells me it would end up unedifying.

I see that alot, by a lot of good solid evangelicals even Weslyans and Calvanists. As many times as I have seen it in context I still have no idea what 'Federal Head' is supposed to mean. I sum it up as Adam and Eve were the first parents of humanity.

I don't know about whether or not it's 'edifying' but arguing that Adam is a figure of speach can't get you around the sin problem. Not in the Scriptures and not in your life. If we really want to build up the church we should be far more focused on the second Adam.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

arguing that Adam is a figure of speach can't get you around the sin problem.

Right. Not a problem when Adam is seen as a real, literal, single human.

-Papias

 

[Joshua0035]

What are your thoughts?

Yes, ALL the people in Luke's Genealogy were real live historical people. What we read and learn about these people are accurate and true. For example, Joshua really did fight the battle of Jericho, David really did fight Goliath. Rehab really was a prostitute. In fact if you go to ancient Jericho today, the only part of the wall that is still standing was the outside wall of Rehabs house. There is plenty of scientific evidence and archeology evidence to show that the Bible is an accurate and true book. That is why we are told that the day is coming when: "every tongue shall confess..."


Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,

Luke 3:24 Which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi, which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Janna, which was [the son] of Joseph,

Luke 3:25 Which was [the son] of Mattathias, which was [the son] of Amos, which was [the son] of Naum, which was [the son] of Esli, which was [the son] of Nagge,

Luke 3:26 Which was [the son] of Maath, which was [the son] of Mattathias, which was [the son] of Semei, which was [the son] of Joseph, which was [the son] of Juda,

Luke 3:27 Which was [the son] of Joanna, which was [the son] of Rhesa, which was [the son] of Zorobabel, which was [the son] of Salathiel, which was [the son] of Neri,

Luke 3:28 Which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Addi, which was [the son] of Cosam, which was [the son] of Elmodam, which was [the son] of Er,

Luke 3:29 Which was [the son] of Jose, which was [the son] of Eliezer, which was [the son] of Jorim, which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi,

Luke 3:30 Which was [the son] of Simeon, which was [the son] of Juda, which was [the son] of Joseph, which was [the son] of Jonan, which was [the son] of Eliakim,

Luke 3:31 Which was [the son] of Melea, which was [the son] of Menan, which was [the son] of Mattatha, which was [the son] of Nathan, which was [the son] of David,

Luke 3:32 Which was [the son] of Jesse, which was [the son] of Obed, which was [the son] of Booz, which was [the son] of Salmon, which was [the son] of Naasson,

Luke 3:33 Which was [the son] of Aminadab, which was [the son] of Aram, which was [the son] of Esrom, which was [the son] of Phares, which was [the son] of Juda,

Luke 3:34 Which was [the son] of Jacob, which was [the son] of Isaac, which was [the son] of Abraham, which was [the son] of Thara, which was [the son] of Nachor,

Luke 3:35 Which was [the son] of Saruch, which was [the son] of Ragau, which was [the son] of Phalec, which was [the son] of Heber, which was [the son] of Sala,

Luke 3:36 Which was [the son] of Cainan, which was [the son] of Arphaxad, which was [the son] of Sem, which was [the son] of Noe, which was [the son] of Lamech,

Luke 3:37 Which was [the son] of Mathusala, which was [the son] of Enoch, which was [the son] of Jared, which was [the son] of Maleleel, which was [the son] of Cainan,

Luke 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.

 

[mark kennedy]

This would suffice.

Adam, which was [the son] of God. (Luke 3:28b)​

 

[MathWizard]

I voted yes. I believe it to be an obvious tenet of Christian belief.

 

[Assyrian]

This would suffice.

Adam, which was [the son] of God. (Luke 3:28b)​

You take that literally? I thought only fundamentalist Mormons believe God actually begat Adam.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

This would suffice.

Adam, which was [the son] of God. (Luke 3:28b)
​

Assyrian:>>You take that literally? I thought only fundamentalist Mormons believe God actually begat Adam.

Dear Assyrian, I'm a fundamentalist Christian and I actually believe that Jesus, who IS God, begat Adam. It was on the 3rd Day long BEFORE life came from the water PROVING that Adam did NOT evolve from ANY other living creature, but was made by the Hands of Jesus. We are the FIRST of all other living creatures and NOT the last.

You should notify the other Evols that the Theory of Evolution has been proven wrong SCRIPTURALLY. IOW, God tells us we did NOT evolve, thus overriding the false teaching of Evolutionism, both Godless and Theological.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Assyrian]

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

This would suffice.

Adam, which was [the son] of God. (Luke 3:28b)​

Assyrian:>>You take that literally? I thought only fundamentalist Mormons believe God actually begat Adam.

Dear Assyrian, I'm a fundamentalist Christian and I actually believe that Jesus, who IS God, begat Adam.

You do know what beget means and what it involves?

It was on the 3rd Day long BEFORE life came from the water PROVING that Adam did NOT evolve from ANY other living creature, but was made by the Hands of Jesus. We are the FIRST of all other living creatures and NOT the last.

You should notify the other Evols that the Theory of Evolution has been proven wrong SCRIPTURALLY. IOW, God tells us we did NOT evolve, thus overriding the false teaching of Evolutionism, both Godless and Theological.

In Love,
Aman

The Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis disagrees with evolution too, but it doesn't disprove it. It just means if evolution is true, which it is, then the YEC interpretation is wrong. The literal interpretation of geocentric passages in Copernicus and Galileo's time didn't disprove heliocentrism. The fact the earth goes round the sun simply showed the geocentric interpretation was wrong and the church needed to find a better way to understand those passages, which it did. Now you may be convinced by your rather unusual interpretation of Genesis, you may think is means evolution is wrong, but it doesn't, it just means your interpretation of Genesis is at odds with reality.

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>You should notify the other Evols that the Theory of Evolution has been proven wrong SCRIPTURALLY. IOW, God tells us we did NOT evolve, thus overriding the false teaching of Evolutionism, both Godless and Theological.

Assyrian:>>The Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis disagrees with evolution too, but it doesn't disprove it. It just means if evolution is true, which it is, then the YEC interpretation is wrong.

Dear Assyrian, Not in God's time. God has but 7 Days or Ages and the 7th is Eternity. IOW, God is a YEC. He speaks of His Creation as being complete in just 6 Days.

Assyrian:>>The literal interpretation of geocentric passages in Copernicus and Galileo's time didn't disprove heliocentrism. The fact the earth goes round the sun simply showed the geocentric interpretation was wrong and the church needed to find a better way to understand those passages, which it did. Now you may be convinced by your rather unusual interpretation of Genesis, you may think is means evolution is wrong, but it doesn't, it just means your interpretation of Genesis is at odds with reality.

Then it should be easy for one approaching 15k posts to point out my obvious mistakes. We've tried that but you ran away when it got interesting. Perhaps it was because you kept insisting that man was NOT made on the 3rd Day as Scripture plainly says. Are you the one who kept insisting that God's Holy Word is Allegory?

In Love,
Aman

 

[Calminian]

You take that literally? I thought only fundamentalist Mormons believe God actually begat Adam.

Luke never said God begat Adam. Son is a word used for direct creations. Angels are called sons of God in Job. They are direct creations and not created via procreation. The nation of Israel is also called the son of God as it is a nation created directly by God. And, it is also correct also to call Adam the son of God, as he was directly created out of dirt by God. Adam was the only human that could be called the son of God apart from those in Christ.

Now the other way to become a son of God is to be found in Christ who is the only begotten Son of God. In Him we become the children of God, not because we were directly created, but because we have become united with Christ the Son.

 

[Calminian]

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.

Actually he did. Josephus is one of the most important apologists for jewish history who ever lived. For certain his work of the Antiquities of the Jews is his most important work. And even though there were some accusations toward him in the way he handled himself during times of war, even jews understand how important his works were. Josephus believed his works to be true history, based on both the Bible and ancient jewish tradition.

I good read on him is found here:
JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS:
Jewish Encyclopedia

Now many jews are not happy with the side he ended up on during the war, but even they recognize him as a historian and an apologist for jewish history. They do not refer to him as an allegorist nor philosopher, but a historian, and a very educated one at that.

Now you may disagree with his history, just as you disagree with the history of the Bible, but that doesn't warrant saying he thought his works to be merely allegory and not actual history.

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.

But you're missing a very important point. That something has allegorical meaning does not mean it is not also literal. The early church believed in literal days, and also believe those days had futuristic allegorical meanings. The same is true with the jews and likely Josephus. That's quite different than modern allegorists like your self who believe the Bible is allegorical but not also historical.

I don't believe the creation accounts describe actual history because creation itself tells us it can't be so. ...

I know, it it's so sad because you're missing a tremendous blessing that comes from believing the word of God. We please God by trusting him, and that in and of itself is perhaps the biggest blessing of all. I would never condemn you or any others for their rejection of Genesis, but at the same time, the church is missing out on the full blessing of believing and defending God's word.

 

[Assyrian]

Aman:>>You should notify the other Evols that the Theory of Evolution has been proven wrong SCRIPTURALLY. IOW, God tells us we did NOT evolve, thus overriding the false teaching of Evolutionism, both Godless and Theological.

Assyrian:>>The Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis disagrees with evolution too, but it doesn't disprove it. It just means if evolution is true, which it is, then the YEC interpretation is wrong.

Dear Assyrian, Not in God's time. God has but 7 Days or Ages and the 7th is Eternity. IOW, God is a YEC. He speaks of His Creation as being complete in just 6 Days.

Assyrian:>>The literal interpretation of geocentric passages in Copernicus and Galileo's time didn't disprove heliocentrism. The fact the earth goes round the sun simply showed the geocentric interpretation was wrong and the church needed to find a better way to understand those passages, which it did. Now you may be convinced by your rather unusual interpretation of Genesis, you may think is means evolution is wrong, but it doesn't, it just means your interpretation of Genesis is at odds with reality.

You didn't address any of my points.

Then it should be easy for one approaching 15k posts to point out my obvious mistakes. We've tried that but you ran away when it got interesting. Perhaps it was because you kept insisting that man was NOT made on the 3rd Day as Scripture plainly says. Are you the one who kept insisting that God's Holy Word is Allegory?

In Love,
Aman

So where is your response to posts 79, 80 and 85 in your 'Man made on the 3rd day' thread?

 

[Assyrian]

Luke never said God begat Adam. Son is a word used for direct creations. Angels are called sons of God in Job. They are direct creations and not created via procreation. The nation of Israel is also called the son of God as it is a nation created directly by God. And, it is also correct also to call Adam the son of God, as he was directly created out of dirt by God. Adam was the only human that could be called the son of God apart from those in Christ. Now the other way to become a son of God is to be found in Christ who is the only begotten Son of God. In Him we become the children of God, not because we were directly created, but because we have become united with Christ the Son.

If Adam was created out of dirt rather than God being his biological father, then 'son of God' is not literal it is figurative. The same with the angelic 'sons of God and Israel.

 

[Calminian]

If Adam was created out of dirt rather than God being his biological father, then 'son of God' is not literal it is figurative. The same with the angelic 'sons of God and Israel.

I think you're perhaps looking at it in light of modern english nomenclature. For the ancient bible writers, seems "born" was a term used for direct creation. This is why first generation offspring are called sons, and this seems to be why angels and Adam were referred to as sons. Seems very literal. The term begotten is also interesting as that seems to be added to those created through the birthing process.

From what I've gathered pondering how the Bible speaks of this, there are two ways to attain sons. Create them, or father them. Only Christ was fathered by God, and begotten. Adam and the angels were created directly and therefore sons, but were not fathered, and therefore they don't call God Father as Christ does. And then of course, the good news is that those in Christ also can call God father as well, but only those in Christ. I don't think that is a privilege that even the most holy angels have.

 

[Assyrian]

I think you're perhaps looking at it in light of modern english nomenclature. For the ancient bible writers, seems "born" was a term used for direct creation. This is why first generation offspring are called sons, and this seems to be why angels and Adam were referred to as sons. Seems very literal. The term begotten is also interesting as that seems to be added to those created through the birthing process.

If anything Hebrew was even better at figurative and poetic usage of words, Benjamin's name meant 'son of my sorrow' you have the 'son of wickedness' in Psalm 89:22 and a similar Hebraism in the NT's 'son of perdition', a man condemned to death is a 'son of death' 1Sam 30:21 we see it in Joseph from Cyprus's Aramaic nickname Barnabas, 'son of encouragement', priests are 'sons of oil' Zech 4:14, people from Jeruslaem were 'sons of Zion' Psalm 149:2, the Babylonians were the 'son of Babylon' Ezek 23:15 and Arabs were called 'sons of the East' Gen 29:1. Sparks are the sons of coal Job 5:7, the northern stars are sons of the Great bear Job 38:22.

From what I've gathered pondering how the Bible speaks of this, there are two ways to attain sons. Create them, or father them. Only Christ was fathered by God, and begotten. Adam and the angels were created directly and therefore sons, but were not fathered, and therefore they don't call God Father as Christ does. And then of course, the good news is that those in Christ also can call God father as well, but only those in Christ. I don't think that is a privilege that even the most holy angels have.

What do you think God meant in Exodus 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son?

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Aman:>>You should notify the other Evols that the Theory of Evolution has been proven wrong SCRIPTURALLY. IOW, God tells us we did NOT evolve, thus overriding the false teaching of Evolutionism, both Godless and Theological.

Assyrian:>>The Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis disagrees with evolution too, but it doesn't disprove it.
It just means if evolution is true, which it is, then the YEC interpretation is wrong.

Dear Assyrian, Not in God's time. God has but 7 Days or Ages and the 7th is Eternity. IOW, God is a YEC. He speaks of His Creation as being complete in just 6 Days.

Assyrian:>>The literal interpretation of geocentric passages in Copernicus and Galileo's time didn't disprove heliocentrism. The fact the earth goes round the sun simply showed the geocentric interpretation was wrong and the church needed to find a better way to understand those passages, which it did. Now you may be convinced by your rather unusual interpretation of Genesis, you may think is means evolution is wrong, but it doesn't, it just means your interpretation of Genesis is at odds with reality.
​

You didn't address any of my points.

Dear Assyrian, False. Perhaps your problem is reading and comprehending. The fact that people of 500 years ago didn't know the Truth about heliocentrism has NOTHING to do with the Scriptural Fact that we live today on the 6th Day.

You have Never addressed my point that Today remains the 6th Creative Day. Now, you begin to whine that my views are not reality. Please post your Scripture which shows such. I don't think you can.


Aman:>>Then it should be easy for one approaching 15k posts to point out my obvious mistakes. We've tried that but you ran away when it got interesting. Perhaps it was because you kept insisting that man was NOT made on the 3rd Day as Scripture plainly says. Are you the one who kept insisting that God's Holy Word is Allegory?

Assyrian:>>So where is your response to posts 79, 80 and 85 in your 'Man made on the 3rd day' thread?

I tire of posting the same thing over and over. So far, all you have said is that you cannot see that the events of the 3rd Day AGREE in both Genesis 1:9-10 and Genesis 2:4. It's probably because you have NO idea how to answer this since it goes against your false religion of Evolism, and your allegorical view of God's Holy Word.

Man was made on the 3rd Day, after the Earth was made but Before the plants, herbs, and trees grew. No matter how much you attempt to ignore this Scriptural fact, you cannot escape God's Truth as shown in a proper interpretation that man was made on the 3rd Day.

In Love,
Aman

 

[gluadys]

Now you may disagree with his history, just as you disagree with the history of the Bible, but that doesn't warrant saying he thought his works to be merely allegory and not actual history.

I don't disagree with his history. Just that in his day, it was common to tell history allegorically. We draw distinctions ancient Jews did not. It would be a serious misunderstanding to refer to anything they wrote as "merely" allegory as if allegory was unimportant or inherently not historical.

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.

But you're missing a very important point. That something has allegorical meaning does not mean it is not also literal.

You are repeating the point I just made, so I don't know how you come to the conclusion I am missing it. Though I think you mean "historical" not "literal". After all, fiction can also be literal. Poetry can be literal. "Literal" does not ipso facto mean historical.

The early church believed in literal days, and also believe those days had futuristic allegorical meanings.

I believe the author of Genesis 1 was referring to literal days too. I see no reason to interpret them as symbolic of long ages. But I don't believe those literal days were days in any historical calendar. I take them as the literary framework the author used to tell the story of creation and link it to Sabbath theology.

And, in fact, late Judaism and early Christianity did not believe the days of Genesis 1 were literal. They did interpret them as long ages. A common belief at the time was that each creative day was 1,000 years long and the day of rest 7,000 years long. That is the basis for setting the creation of humankind some 6,000 years earlier.

I know, it it's so sad because you're missing a tremendous blessing that comes from believing the word of God. We please God by trusting him, and that in and of itself is perhaps the biggest blessing of all. I would never condemn you or any others for their rejection of Genesis, but at the same time, the church is missing out on the full blessing of believing and defending God's word.

What is sad is that you interpret my position as one of unbelief, distrust and rejection. Whereas I feel greatly blessed by my belief in the Word of God, in the teaching of scripture, in my trust in God and my embrace of Genesis. The people of Genesis: Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, Enoch, Lamech and Noah, as well as Abraham and his descendants are more real and meaningful and spiritually enlightening to me than they ever could be as mere figures of long dead history.

I also feel blessed by being able to accept the natural world as it is: billions of years of history, including the history of the diversification of life into a multitude of endless forms most beautiful as the creative work of God: IOW I fully accept the Christian/biblical doctrine of creation as applying to nature as it is, not to an imaginary creation assumed on the basis of questionable hermeneutical principles.