Just out of curiosity (no judgment hear) do you think Adam was a real person? Or not?
Yes. The word Adam in Hebrew refers to a red man. I believe the historical Adam is the progenitor of the red Horite Hebrew of Edom from whom are descended many of the great kings of Israel, including David and Herod the Great. You will recall that Esau of Edom and David are both described in the Bible has being red.
So, for you, when do you see Adam in history? Any other scholars that agree with you? Why did you reject the mythical Adam so often presented by theistic evolutionists?
Jeff Benner is a leading Hebrew scholar. See what he wrote here about the word Adam.
I’m familiar with this claim:
Name of the Month - Adam
By: Jeff A. Benner
We are all familiar with the name “Adam” as found in the book of Genesis, but what does it really mean? Let us begin by looking at its roots. This word/name is a child root derived from the parent דם meaning, “blood”. By placing the letter א in front of the parent root, the child rootאדם is formed and is related in meaning to דם (blood).
By examing a few other words derived from the child root אדם we can see a common meaning in them all. The Hebrew word אדמה (adamah) is the feminine form of אדם meaning “ground” (see Genesis 2:7). The word/name אדום (Edom) means “red”. Each of these words have the common meaning of “red”. Dam is the “red” blood, adamah is the “red” ground, edom is the color “red” and adam is the “red” man. There is one other connection between “adam” and “adamah” as seen in Genesis 2:7 which states that “the adam” was formed out of the “adamah”.
In the ancient Hebrew world, a person’s name was not simply an identifier but descriptive of one’s character. As Adam was formed out of the ground, his name identifies his origins.
Adam is presented two ways in Scripture. Neither allows for a mythical Adam. The historical Adam is the founder of the lines of ruler-priests who were known in the ancient world as 'Apiru or Habiru (Hebrew). This places Adam in relatively recent history. He would be in Haplogroup R1b. The range of R1b is from Lake Chad (Noah’s homeland) to Southern Europe where we find the ancient populations of the Hittites, Elamites, Saka, Scythians, etc. St. Paul speaks of Adam using an analogy where he contrasts Adam and Jesus in Romans 5:12-21.
How do you respond to the objection that Genesis is clearly a borrowed myth, and was understood as fiction by its original readers? (not saying I agree with this.) I"m sure you’ve heard things like this from ASA, as this view seems ascendant there: e.g. Dennis Venema and Denis Lamoureux.
Can Alice’s anthropology provide anchor points to the Ancient DNA extracted from 8,000 year old skeletons from the region?
Wondering whether Alice has interacted with “tablet theory,” and feels conversant in the differing implications of a “recapitulatory” versus a “sequential” reading of the first two pericopes in Genesis.
This, combined with the implications of GA theory, opens up all kinds of coherent vistas. Welcome aboard, Alice!
I’m late to this discussion because of time zones, but though I’ve yet to read links to your original stuff, I have a couple of relevant questions.
(1) I’ve suggested previously that “adam” was, as you say, originally a tribal designation, along the lines of the Sumerian “black-headed people”, and the tendency of many tribes to call only themselves “people.” But since in the Bible, “adam” becomes a generic term for “human”, I speculate that the word has a history rather like the English “Folk”, which was originally the name of the Anglian tribes for themselves, but became generalised to mean “just plain folk”. Does that seem plausible to you - it would seem to account for some of the ambiguities in the Bible on the matter.
(2) I assume that the Table of Nations, taken not as “all the peoples of the world”, but as “a specific group of related peoples/languages/culture”, corresponds to the usage of a particular time. Does that give us clues as to the most likely time for its composition, eg at the dawn of history, or at the time of Moses, or after the Exile, etc? I don’t think it would alter the argument, in that at all those times there were contacts with the Eastern peoples not on the list, but it does help understand the way Genesis was written, and hence its purpose.
Nor Ireland either!
I have listened to both Dennis and Denis and I don’t agree with them. Here is my respond to Denis’s view:
It was very common for archaic people to call themselves Humans. Many aboriginal peoples had a name for themselves that simply meant “people” or “humans.” Adam means human or more specifically, red human. The Ainu were an aboriginal people and the word “Ainu” (Annu) means human. It appears that the earliest populations self-identified as human, as distinct from other animals. Even the names given by paleoanthropologists to archaic populations work like this. For example. “Sahelanthropus tchadensis” simply means the humans of the Sahel and Lake Chad basin.
The metal working caste of Anatolia (Turkey) called themselves the Nes (NS) which means Human. They called their language Nesli. In Serbian nas means us, naš means our, naši means our people, naški means our language.
I am really enjoying reading your work. Have you been keeping up with the latest in the whole genome sequencing of ancient skeletons? Is the DNA confirming or perhaps questioning some of the conclusions from anthropology?
Thankyou, Alice. The practice appears so normal - from your examples and those I found - to mean one has to tread very carefully understanding the scope of any ancient account of the origins of “man.”
Adam may have begun as a tribal designation, but by the time of Zech 9:1, it pretty clearly means the same as we mean by “man”. At the writing of Genesis, one might well expect to find an overlap of the useages, and only be able to determine them by the context.
And so we would need to distinguish not only “Adam” as a proper name, “adam” as “the man” in a representative or archetypal sense in ch2, and “adam” as mankind universally, but also “adam” in all three grammatical senses applied to whatever is meant by “the red people.”
Indigenous Theologian… (love that, BTW),
That would be a good empirical approach and I hope you will take on that task. Let me know what you discover.
Alice, here’s one I did earlier.
As for the “indigenous theologian”, that was Joshua’s handle, which I protested mildy here.
Marvelous material at those links!
- Earth is Circular
EXPLICITLY stated in Scripture
God sits enthroned above the circle of the earth.
Christians claim that this verse refers to the outline
of the earth from outer space & is proof that the
Bible states the earth is spherical…
READ THE ENTIRE VERSE!
God sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out
the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out
like a tent to live in.” Isa 40:22
A universe like a tent with domed canopy & flat floor
IMPLICITLY stated in Scripture
There was a tree at the centre of the earth,
and its height was great. The tree grew great and
strong, its top reached to heaven and it was visible
to the ends of the whole earth.” Dan 4:10-11
Only makes sense in a 3-Tier Universe:
with a flat earth could one see the tree from
“the ends of the whole earth”
ie, shoreline of circumferential sea
impossible with a spherical earth
Babylon called the “centre of earth”
the tree & Babylon are not at the centre of a
spherical earth which is 10,000 F!!!
- Earth has Ends
But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have
chosen, descendant of Abraham My friend, you
whom I have taken from the ends of the earth,
and called from its remotest parts [Ur]. Is 41:8-9
Abraham from Ur (S. Mesopotamia) Gen 11:31
(Ur at shoreline of the circumferential sea )
Jesus: The Queen of the South [Sheba] will rise
at the judgment with this generation & condemn
it; for she came from the ends of the earth
to listen to Solomon’s wisdom. Matt 12:42
Sheba in the SW corner of Arabia
I’m curious whether anything in this thread is actually true.