Was Adam a man?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Gen 1:1-2)

I believe, this story can take two different views; on one hand, Adam was considered a person by Paul himself in his writings in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul disntictly refers to"the first man Adam." if one understands the word "Adam" always to mean "human," there is something of a redundancy here, to say the very least. Here also it appears that Paul thought of Adam as a real, historical person. (Erickson, pg. 442) 

I find it plausible to say that perhaps there really was an Adam and an Eve, who significantly effected the world as we know it. Who were preordained to make that sacrifice and start the events that unfolded, however, I know that Yahweah uses these figures and stories in hopes that we will look intrinsically to find more significance and insight. 

"Naturalistic Evolution" where the biblical data mixes with the scientific data, thus forming all life without the supernatural explanation. There being no divine person, either at the beginning or during the process. All being needed as atoms in motion. A combination of atoms, motion, time, and chance has fashioned what we currently have. No attempt is made to account for these given, they simply are just there, the basis of everything else. (Erickson, pg. 443) 

Rather, the "Fiat Creationism" creates a more supernaturalistic feel that Yahweah created everything like the touch of a button. That there was no time involved and that humans did not come from any previously existing organism. (Erickson, pg. 444) 

However, I think I may side with the  "Progressive Creationism" perspective where one agrees with fiat creationism in order to maintain that the entirety for the first human's nature was specially created. It disagrees, however, in holding that there was a certain amount of development in creation after God's original direct act. It agrees with naturalistic evolution, deistic evolution, and theistic evolution in seeing development within the creation, but insists that there were several "de novo" acts of creation within this overall process. And although it agrees with theistic evolution that humanity is the result of a special act of creation by God, it goes beyond that view by insisting that this special creative act encompassed the entire human nature, both physical and spiritual. (Erickson, pg. 446) 

So however, we want to react to this generalize concept and/or story, we can most certainly take away from it a certain austerity, a certain resolution of what man's nature on earth has accomplished. The biting of the apple, for instance, just as the Apple on an iPhone show significant status in regards to what sin is all about. If one take a bite, they then know what it tastes like. The same as sin; if one takes a bite they then know what it tastes like. Some are more prone to listening to the "just don't go" perspective. However, some learn by their efforts in first-hand experience. Those who are held under a heave yolk of law, see things differently than one who exists in the freedom of the Lord. Many react differently but at the end of this period, the Lord still brings about change within his desire. Good or bad, we can choose to take the long way or the short way. Either way, he will still have our hand on us and still prune us on a path that will create the change he is longing for. Whether Adam and Eve were truly creatures created from the earth, who developed into full mature human beings, or were created in an instance, the ultimate perspective is "Does this really matter?" If we had the answers would it achieve any other truth than that of literal basis? If that literal basis was accomplished, how would it sincerely change your life for better or for worse? Ultimately, God has skip to the "good points" ... the things that truly matter in order to establish what he's trying to accomplish; an internal reasoning of what sin is really about. 

On a final note, Erickson brings up a very good point in regards to the establishment of our limitations of dwelling within the human body, " Limitation is not inherently bad. There is a tendency to bemoan the fact if human finiteness. Some, indeed, maintain that this its he cause of human sin. If were not limited, we would always know what is right and would do it. Were humans not encumbered by finiteness, they could do better. But the Bible indicates that having made the human with the limitations they go with creature hood, God looked at the creation and pronounced it "very good" (Gen 1:31). Finiteness may well lead to sin if we fail to accept our limitation and live accordingly. But the mere fact of our limitation does not inevitably produce sin. Rather, improper response to that limitation either constitutes or results in sin. (Erickson, pg. 454) 

In closing, I love the following scripture; 

Know that the Lord is God. It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture. 

Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise; give thanks to him and praise his name. For the Lord is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations. (Ps. 100:3-5) 



2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Business address ;

In case anybody would like to respond to any of my posts ; you’re more than welcome to; at any post. the gollowing ; is where I can be reached the most. Please allow at lest 10 days for any reply from