Talk:Adam

Adam Chronologies

• NeoBabylon of 747bc (5200bc +2256 to Arpaxad 2945bc)
• Christian Eusebius (Greek 5200bc +2242 to Flood 2958bc)
• Christian Africanus (Hindu 5500bc to Nordic 500AD)
• Christian Hippolytus (Hindu 5500bc)
• Septuagint (Egyptian 5346bc) +2256 to Flood 3090bc
• Mohammad (Moslem 5378bc) +2256 to Flood 3122bc to 622AD
• Ahau Pacal Votan =Lord Shield Heart (Mayan 5370bc) +2256 to Flood 3114bc to 630AD
• Beatus of Liebana (Greek 5200bc mistotal of 5227 years) to 800AD
• Jewish Demetrius (5307bc) +2262 to Flood (based on 1843bc as death of Salem Melkizedek in year 1200) and based on 300-year Babylon as 2007bc Marduk to 1707bc as 3600am)
• Jewish Eupolemus (5307bc) +1662 to Flood
• Seder Olam Rabbah (Jewish 3761bc) 19-year lunar
• Columbus (4508bc) +Samaritan 1556 to Samaritan 2960bc Flood to 1492AD
• The Big Three Spain & France & Dutch versus Britain (4267bc) +Samaritan 1307 to Samaritan 2960bc Flood to 1733AD (This inspires the 30-year Christ as Daniels 2300 in 1763AD war with Dutch)
• Ussher (KJV 4004bc) +1656 to 2349bc Flood
• Jasher (3904bc) + Samaritan 1556 to 2349bc Flood
• Adventist (Adventist 4128bc) using 450-year judges Acts 13:20
• Russell (4128bc)
• Rutherford (4028bc)
• WatchTower 4026bc)

75.86.172.174 (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

A Christian theologian on myth

Christian theologian Conrad Hyers wrote that

...myth today has come to have negative connotations which are the complete opposite of its meaning in a religious context... In a religious context, however, myths are storied vehicles of supreme truth, the most basic and important truths of all. By them people regulate and interpret their lives and find worth and purpose in their existence. Myths put one in touch with sacred realities, the fundamental sources of being, power, and truth. They are seen not only as being the opposite of error but also as being clearly distinguishable from stories told for entertainment and from the workaday, domestic, practical language of a people. They provide answers to the mysteries of being and becoming, mysteries which, as mysteries, are hidden, yet mysteries which are revealed through story and ritual. Myths deal not only with truth but with ultimate truth.

*Hyers, Conradl (1984). The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0804201254. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Mathews 1996

This source seems to be missing at the bottom, although there are existing sfn references to it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 11:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have found which source it was and have added it. —PaleoNeonate - 13:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I've finished - or at least I'm tired of this. Any suggestions/comments? PiCo (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It was a pleasure to follow your edits and do small fixes here and there. Two things that surprised me:

1. Although the topic is not unfamiliar to me, I did not know or consider plausible that the Apocalypse of Moses could have had an influence on early Christianity. I thought that it was a much later work. I see that scholars' opinions vary about this and that some propose that a 1st century origin is possible.
2. It's possible that the Islam section could be reworded to sound less "factual".

Overall, thanks for working on this. —PaleoNeonate - 04:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

@PiCo: Your edit summary was inaccurate because the original edition was what you removed from Etymology last month,[1] these edits were standing there for many years. You have entirely removed the origins yet you have changed the section to "Origin and use", it makes no sense. In any case we cannot ignore the number of scholarly sources and narrow the scope. Information has been sourced to reliable sources from J. Wiley & Sons., Inner Traditions / Bear & Co, Routledge and even the Bloomsbury that you have partially included. You can't remove the content without gaining consensus per WP:BRD, especially when you have been reverted. I am not objecting to what you had included or your removal of other sections but this one needs to stay. If you want to read something scholarly about this word,[2][3][4][5] are good ones for you. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@D4iNa4, I believe that my edit summary said the original was more informative, not that the text you want isn't accurate or well sourced. As Barr said long ago, etymology tells us very little about the meaning of words, in the bible or elsewhere. The Primeval History (the story of Adam and the rest of Genesis to chapter 11) doesn't depend on what the root means or on ancient Adamu, but on what the author intended. For his purposes, what counted was the correspondence between "earth" and "man", man being formed from earth and returning to earth. This is why your text is not informative. I'm reverting, and if you wish to take it further I suggest you do so at dispute resolution. PiCo (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

That means you should either rewrite the meaning or expand it in place of removing long standing content about the origins of the word. Varieties of origins of this word are much recognized by scholars and it is informative to tell about them since they backed by reliable sources. By removing the origins of the subject you are just narrowing the scope and misleading editors to think that this is all we got, when scholarly literature is much more. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the removed information is correct, just whether it belongs here. In that respect, it seems hard to argue that it isn't relevant to the topic, and I can't see why it shouldn't be included. Now, it may well be that it's misleading in terms of the original author's intentions in using it, but that would require some additional commentary to put it in context, not simply deletion. Explain why it's not relevant in that particular context (with sources) rather than just deleting it. Anaxial (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"Much later"

The description "much later" for the date of composition seems rather silly. The mainstream view is a date of composition between the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, while the minority view is a date of composition between the 5th and 3rd century BCE. That is a window of 200-300 years, covering most of the Achaemenid period and the beginnings of the Hellenistic era. There is not much of a difference in estimates. Dimadick (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210050956/http://www.adventist.org/ to http://www.adventist.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)