When Did Adam Live?

[neo-x]

Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.

[DBowling]

As for Adam and Eve, I might add Conclusion 5 to Dave's post - i.e., the story is allegorical or is symbolic of a spiritual event.

My personal take on "Conclusion 5" is that Adam and Eve were historical people who existed in Mesopotamia somewhere around 5000 to 6000 BC.

My belief in the historicity of Adam and Eve are based on the following.
1. Jesus and Paul referred to Adam and Eve as historical people.
2. Sumerian and Akkadian legends refer to a person with forms of the name Adam. The legend's have enough similarities to the Biblical account of Adam to indicate some common source, but enough differences to indicate that the Biblical narrative is not directly dependent on the legendary material. This indicates to me that there was a historical Adam behind the Genesis narrative and who was also the basis for later Sumerian myth and legend.

Even though I believe that Adam was a historical person, I also believe he was an archetypal representative for all mankind. And I believe that there is symbolic and spiritual content in the Genesis narrative of the historic Adam.
So I don't necessarily see historicity and archetype/symbolism/spiritualism as mutually exclusive concepts.

In Christ

[LittleHamster]

As for Adam and Eve, I might add Conclusion 5 to Dave's post - i.e., the story is allegorical or is symbolic of a spiritual event.

My personal take on "Conclusion 5" is that Adam and Eve were historical people who existed in Mesopotamia somewhere around 5000 to 6000 BC.

My belief in the historicity of Adam and Eve are based on the following.
1. Jesus and Paul referred to Adam and Eve as historical people.
2. Sumerian and Akkadian legends refer to a person with forms of the name Adam. The legend's have enough similarities to the Biblical account of Adam to indicate some common source, but enough differences to indicate that the Biblical narrative is not directly dependent on the legendary material. This indicates to me that there was a historical Adam behind the Genesis narrative and who was also the basis for later Sumerian myth and legend.

Even though I believe that Adam was a historical person, I also believe he was an archetypal representative for all mankind. And I believe that there is symbolic and spiritual content in the Genesis narrative of the historic Adam.
So I don't necessarily see historicity and archetype/symbolism/spiritualism as mutually exclusive concepts.

In Christ

Ok, sounds good. I just googled "are adam and eve an allegory ?" and got over 400,000 articles to read. I will make this a subject of study over the next couple of months, re-read the bible, gather some evidence and come back with some findings. If I'm lucky, I might even get a 'revelation'.

[Audie]

Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.

How do you know that?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.

How do you know that?

He knows that because claiming the story to be allegorical would call into question many other parts of the Bible. Review my questions to Littlehamster and you'll see that he was quickly painting himself into a corner. The story is either true or false...take your pick.

FL

[neo-x]

Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.

How do you know that?

By proper examining the structure, the language, the context and with that how the later authors referred back to the story. We can either say the story is completely made up and reject it, or say completely true and accept it but can't say that it was written as allegorical because that makes no sense, and is not supported by various factors. I mean if the author never penned it as an allegory we can not claim today that it somehow is. The author's intent is paramount here.

[Audie]

Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.

How do you know that?

By proper examining the structure, the language, the context and with that how the later authors referred back to the story. We can either say the story is completely made up and reject it, or say completely true and accept it but can't say that it was written as allegorical because that makes no sense, and is not supported by various factors. I mean if the author never penned it as an allegory we can not claim today that it somehow is. The author's intent is paramount here.

Another among the many reasons not to believe in any of it.

[DBowling]

Off the top of my head I can think of three reasons why I do believe the Genesis narrative concerning Adam and Eve.
1. Jesus believed it. (Matthew 19:3-9, Mark 10:2-9)
2. Paul believed it. (Romans 5:12-19, 1 Corinthians 15:20-23,42-49)
3. Luke believed it. (Luke 3:23-38)


In Christ

[neo-x]

Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.

How do you know that?

By proper examining the structure, the language, the context and with that how the later authors referred back to the story. We can either say the story is completely made up and reject it, or say completely true and accept it but can't say that it was written as allegorical because that makes no sense, and is not supported by various factors. I mean if the author never penned it as an allegory we can not claim today that it somehow is. The author's intent is paramount here.

Another among the many reasons not to believe in any of it.

Then don't, no one's asking you to. You asked how I knew that and I told you. If you don't have any interest in it why ask the question, only to follow up with your personal preference on the matter?

An atheist once wrote to me on my blog, "I don't hate God, I just believe in the fxxxxx" (sorry mods but this is what I work with mostly and People need to realize that its wrong, I hope in Audie's case she see my point). Really! some atheists feel strongly about God. And one even top that; after he asked me a question and I wrote a 2 page reply addressing the nuances of the question he had asked and providing a detailed answer, he replied with a single line "Who cares, I don't believe in your sky-rat anyway". It annoyed me, because instead of addressing the replies to his questions he himself wanted to know he just wrote a one liner insult and was on his merry way.

So my point, try to discuss the points you ask about rather than tell me what you don't believe, which I already know. It adds nothing to the discussion and I for one would like an intelligent discussion rather than a boring reply which brings nothing to the table.

[DBowling]

The historicity of Adam is definitely an interesting subject, but that is not the issue I am struggling with in the OP.
I am convinced that Adam was a historical person who lived in 5000 to 6000 BC in Mesopotamia.

It is the implications of the when (5000 to 6000 BC) that is causing me to reevaluate some traditions that I have previously held, especially when I consider that real live humans (homo sapiens sapiens) had occupied the whole world tens of thousands of years before the time of Adam and Eve and the Fall.

So let me throw out some of the questions that I am working my way through.

1. Were Adam and Eve the progenitors of all human beings?
Right now I'm convinced the answer is no. If Adam and Eve lived in Mesopotamia in 5000 to 6000 BC then humans were in such remote places as the Americas and Australia tens of thousands of years before the time of Adam and Eve. So the historic Adam and Eve could not possibly have been the physical progenitors of all mankind.
2. Was Adam mortal before the Fall?
Here's one I have changed my mind on. Right now I would say yes. Before God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden man/mankind was "formed from the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7). Elsewhere in Scripture the concept of being "formed from dust" is used as a reference to mankind's mortality (eg Psalm 103:14). I am coming around to the perspective that one of the implications of Genesis 2:7 is that man/mankind was mortal before Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden. Another Biblical principle that supports this conclusion is the existence of the "Tree of Life" in the Garden of Eden. If Adam was already physically immortal before being placed in the Garden then what was the purpose of the "Tree of Life" and why was Adam encouraged to eat from it prior to the Fall?
3. What was the spiritual state of those humans in the rest of the world prior to the Fall?
Still struggling with that one... Ideas would be appreciated. According to Romans 5:12 mankind had not experienced sin prior to the Fall, but Genesis 3 gives us some additional insight. The tree in question was not "The Tree of the Knowledge of Evil" the tree was the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". Evidently mankind prior to the Fall did not know either good or evil... Still trying to understand what that even means.
4. What happened to humans in the rest of the world at the time of the Fall?
Struggling with this one too... According to Genesis 3:7 after Adam and Eve sinned their "eyes were opened" to know good and evil. Would this "eye opening" experience have extended to all humans across the globe at the same time? Don't know
5. Original Sin.
This one's a doozie! Scripture teaches us that all humans have an inherent tendency to sin, and observations of any person or persons for any length of time validates this Scriptural teaching. Is this inherent tendency to sin in humans a result of the Fall or did it predate the Fall possibly as a natural function of human free will and actually contribute to the Fall? One note here... I definitely draw a distinction between an inherent tendency to sin and consciously sinning. An infant has the inherent tendency to sin, but it is not guilty of sin until at some point in its life the infant develops to a state where that inherent tendency expresses itself in willful sin.

OK... that should be enough to stir some things up... In my OP I expressed how I was struggling with the implications of placing the historical Adam and Eve in the 5000 to 6000 BC time frame. Hopefully this post gives a little insight into some of the implications that I'm struggling with and why they are important... well at least to me they're kind of important.

Fire away!

In Christ

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

1. Were Adam and Eve the progenitors of all human beings?

What does the Bible say about this? Ge 1:27, and read all of Genesis, chapter 2.

2. Was Adam mortal before the Fall?

By inference, no. He and his wife were immortal...as we all are even today. The difference is that Adam would never have had to face physical death had he not sinned.

3. What was the spiritual state of those humans in the rest of the world prior to the Fall?

If any were around, they were animals, like dogs & cats & rats, and would have been created on the 5th day. However, all this is silly speculation. The Bible makes no mention of such people-cum-animals.

4. What happened to humans in the rest of the world at the time of the Fall?

These animals, if they existed, would continue to exist until they died. All animals had to die as a result of the Fall, all creation was damned.

5. Original Sin

This one's a doozie! ... Is this inherent tendency to sin in humans a result of the Fall or did it predate the Fall possibly as a natural function of human free will and actually contribute to the Fall? ...

The original sins by Eve & Adam were a choice they freely made. The only cause of their sin must be their freedom to choose between obeying or disobeying God.

FL

[Jac3510]

Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living. (Gen 3:20)

Yes, Adam and Eve were the direct ancestors of all living people (as far as Genesis is concerned, anyway).

[Audie]

Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.

How do you know that?

By proper examining the structure, the language, the context and with that how the later authors referred back to the story. We can either say the story is completely made up and reject it, or say completely true and accept it but can't say that it was written as allegorical because that makes no sense, and is not supported by various factors. I mean if the author never penned it as an allegory we can not claim today that it somehow is. The author's intent is paramount here.

Another among the many reasons not to believe in any of it.

Then don't, no one's asking you to. You asked how I knew that and I told you. If you don't have any interest in it why ask the question, only to follow up with your personal preference on the matter?

An atheist once wrote to me on my blog, "I don't hate God, I just believe in the fxxxxx" (sorry mods but this is what I work with mostly and People need to realize that its wrong, I hope in Audie's case she see my point). Really! some atheists feel strongly about God. And one even top that; after he asked me a question and I wrote a 2 page reply addressing the nuances of the question he had asked and providing a detailed answer, he replied with a single line "Who cares, I don't believe in your sky-rat anyway". It annoyed me, because instead of addressing the replies to his questions he himself wanted to know he just wrote a one liner insult and was on his merry way.

So my point, try to discuss the points you ask about rather than tell me what you don't believe, which I already know. It adds nothing to the discussion and I for one would like an intelligent discussion rather than a boring reply which brings nothing to the table.

yeah, I wished I hadnt posted that. I will get back to this later.

[DBowling]

1. Were Adam and Eve the progenitors of all human beings?

What does the Bible say about this? Ge 1:27, and read all of Genesis, chapter 2.

Genesis 1:27 tells us that that God created mankind in His image on Day 6. The "adam" of Genesis 1 is small 'a' adam denoting mankind in general.
When looking at the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 the question at hand is are Genesis 1 and 2 synoptic or sequential?

If Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential then the Scriptural text would indicate that mankind in general was created on "day 6" in Genesis 1 and then at some later time a specific man, Adam, was placed in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2.

The presumption that Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of day 6 in Genesis 1 instead of a sequel to Genesis 1 is a function of interpretation and tradition as opposed to something that is explicitly stated in the text.

So what does the Bible say about this?
I believe that the Bible says that God created mankind in his image on "day 6" in Genesis 1, and then at some point after "day 7" he took a specific man Adam and placed him in the Garden in Genesis 2:8.

[DBowling]

Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living. (Gen 3:20)

Yes, Adam and Eve were the direct ancestors of all living people (as far as Genesis is concerned, anyway).

OK... let's see how Genesis uses this type of language just one chapter later to see if Genesis 3:20 is really claiming that Eve was the genetic progenitor of all humans.

In Genesis 4:20 Jabal is referred to as the "father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock".
Does this mean that Jabal is the genetic progenitor of all those who dwell in tents and have livestock?

In Genesis 4:21 Jubal is referred to as the "father of all those who play the lyre and pipe".
Does this mean that Jubal is the genetic progenitor of all those who play the lyre and pipe?

Understand that it is unlikely that any of Jabal's or Jubal's descendants survived Noah's Flood and Genesis was written after the Flood, so within the context of Genesis 3 and 4 this type of language ("father of...", "mother of...") cannot be be limited to meaning "genetic progenitor of...".