Do you believe in that Adam?
Jeez, raindog, just make your point already! The Socratic method doesn’t work that well on a message board.
Yes.
But then I’m unencumbered with the baggage that a direct answer would inflict on Tom.
The point, while quite profound for theists, can’t be made if Tom won’t play.
And, it would be a hijack anyway.
I’m not trying to be clever, or Socratic. Nor am I trying to set Tom up.
But it seems clear to me that the answer as to Adam’s existence----and more pointedly the question as to whether the Christian Jews believed in his existence----has the potential to eviscerate the foundation of Christianity.
That is not a problem for the atheists here, but I believe presents a special problem for Christians.
They don’t have to be. It might have turned out that scientific discoveries confirmed a literal account. But they didn’t. Why do you think that is? Why do you have to twist yourself in knots to make them agree? Was God playing with our head, inspiring untruths, or could it be that you are wrong?
I asked you what cosmology books you have read, and you did not answer. Your suggestion about cloning, which others have mentioned reveals a total ignorance of the subject, shows you haven’t read any biology either. Have you read anything not slanted to support your beliefs?
I agree with you that the nonexistence of Adam, and the nonoccurence of the fall, cause big problems for Christians. (Not for Jews - for us it is a just so story.) Now, all you have to do is offer some evidence that Adam did exist and that a literal account isn’t hogwash. Should be simple.
Let me ask you, did the OT Jews believe in [the literal] Adam?
Maybe, but the source material for the Genesis creation myths predates Judaism.
Even if you believe that the Genesis story is the “true” account of creation, uniquely inspired by God, who’s to say that God wasn’t being poetic and allegorical and that the ancient audience (pehaps even the authorial vehicles themselves) were erroneous in understanding the story literally?
Is it fair, then, to assume that you do not accept the theory of evolution? Assuming (again) that your reference to “the attending details” includes God creating each of the animals and plants in their present forms?
The burden that places on the believer is the absolute continuity this error presents throughout the bible. It can’t be overstated.
And for the purpose of this post, I make no claim it is real—any of it.
Certainly the bible contains poetry, allegory, symbolism, parable and other abstract concepts. Now my reading of the accounts, including a fair amount of research, indicates that, at the very least, the authors believed in a literal Adam.
Of course, that doesn’t make him real.
But even if one concedes that Adam never existed, it not only remains true that future generations believed in him, but that Adam represents the underpinnings of Christianity. Even Jesus Christ referenced Adam.
From beginning to end there are no instances in the bible that suggest that Adam was allegorical—and references to him, his geneology, and effect on mankind are consistent.
The problem as I see it, is that a fictional Adam renders much of the bible, and the biggest part of Christianity, as built on fraud.
That presents a whole new set of reconciling for the Christian who believes Adam was fictional, don’t you think?
I think it depends on how you conceptualize the “Fall” and Original Sin. I think Christianity can be saved without a literal Adam if Adam is conceptualized as a symbol for man as a species, rather than as a single individual.
Yes.
Yes.
Would that then require man to have been imperfect from the beginning? In other words, if there was no “Original Sin” when was sin “introduced” into the human experience?
The problem as I see it, however, is that the account is not presented in such an abstract way. Further, there is not just specificity, but continuity throughout.
It also calls into question the merit and truth of Free Will.
And if Sin had no “inception” (once again, contrary to the accounts) that suggests that mankind was essentially “set up” and all of this is just a cruel experiment by a deranged god.
In the end, the bible accounts state without equivocation that mankind needs a “redeemer”; a “Savior”. If not from Adamic sin, then from where?
With respect to the OP then, his search for proof is doomed, right?
And as a related question, the fossil record strongly suggests that over 90% of species that have existed are now extinct. Do you accept this? If not, why not? If you do, does this not necessarily mean that the Earth was tremendously more diverse at the time of creation? Again, if so, shouldn’t we be alarmed by the fact that species are dying out and not being replaced?
Again with respect to the fossil record, how do you account for the absence of humans until rather late in the game? How can it be that countless species became extinct before Man appeared?
Allegorically, the Fall could represent the moment that humans evolved enough to be self-aware, to “know right from wrong,” and therefore to be accountable for their actions, i.e. to be capable of sin. At that moment, they are no longer innocents in the Garden.
I still haven’t figured out what the fruit would be, though.
What are the sources of the Fall myth? I know of the ancient Near-Eastern creation myths, but I’m not familiar with the field enough to know any parallels to the Fall myth in other cultures.
First, it’s important to remember that the main theme of the Eden story in Genesis is not so much the advent of sin (which is referred to only obliquely in Genesis), but A&E’s acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil and (more importantly) the advent of death. God takes away the Tree of Life as punishment for disobedience.
Babylonian and Sumerian myths (which are older than Genesis) prefigure several familiar images and themes from Genesis. In the Epic of Gilagamesh, a plant which would grant immortality is stolen by a serpent.
In the Sumerian myth of Enki and Ninhursag a god named Enki eats fruit from trees planted by a mother goddess named Ninhursag. Ninhursag becomes enraged and hits him with a death curse. Enki becomes very sick but then Ninhursag takes pity on him and creates eight healing goddesses to heal the eight wounded parts of Enki’s body including a goddess named Ninti (“lady of the rib”) to heal his rib.
An elixer of immortality is also stolen by a serpent in a Hindu myth.
Snakes were seen as symbols of immortality by the ancients because of their ability to shed their skin.
Actually, I don’t give a shit. What do you mean by OT Jews? The ones who wrote the Bible, or the ones who lived before? I’m sure there was an Adamic legend which got written down at the time the Bible stories were collected, but I don’t know if there were competing origin stories which were dropped. In any case, as I said, it is not important, since nothing important in the Judaism I learned depends on Adam and Eve. The story simply explains why we die, why childbirth is painful, why we have to work, and why snakes bite people. It is the Christians who made it into a big deal.
So I ask again - got any evidence?
That’s easy, since the Fall has a sexual connotation. Boobies. 
This thread has gone so far afield, since it now seems to encompass the beginnings of life and the universe, that only one answer will suffice:
42.