In the book of Genesis, Adam speaks directly with God—receiving commands, instructions, and even judgments. This kind of divine communication is often associated with the role of a prophet throughout the Bible. Yet, Adam is not explicitly called a prophet in Scripture, nor is he commonly regarded as one in most Christian traditions. Why is that the case? Does the biblical or theological definition of a prophet involve more than just direct communication with God—such as delivering God's message to others, foretelling future events, or leading a covenant community? I’d appreciate perspectives from Scripture, early Church Fathers, and major Christian traditions.

According to Genesis 5:5, Adam lived for 930 years. From a biological standpoint, cell division is a key part of growth and aging. My question is: If Adam’s cells continued to divide over such a long lifespan, does that imply he may have experienced continuous physical growth, possibly resulting in a giant-like stature? I'm especially interested in whether young-Earth creationist or literalist interpretations of Genesis support the idea that Adam was physically much larger than modern humans, particularly in light of ancient environments that may have included large animals (e.g., dinosaurs). Or is it more likely that his size was similar to ours, and the long lifespan simply reflected slower aging without continuous physical growth?

Pohle, *God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural* pt. 2, ch. 2, §3, art. 4, 1. claims: >It is a controverted question among theologians whether \[1\] original sin derives solely from Adam or \[2\] from both Adam and Eve as its efficient cause Which theologians held position #1, and which held position #2? Position #1 would seem to imply that Eve never had Original Sin, though she certainly committed an actual sin (of pride) by transgressing God's command. Position #2 would have to explain how Eve inherited or shared in Adam's sin. I'm not asking whether Adam or Eve is more culpable , but whether Adam alone or Adam with Eve is the cause of their children inheriting Original Sin.

For Christians who believe 1 Enoch is pseudepigrapha what internal evidence do you have? A professor saying "trust me bro I'm a professor" is not evidence. In other words, for Christians who believe that 1 Enoch was first written 300 BC, and then deliberately deceptively backdated to make it look like it was written by Enoch 7th generation from Adam before Noah's flood -- as that is what internal authorship claims -- what evidence do you have of this? In case someone does not know what pseudepigrapha means, here's the [origin and history of *pseudepigrapha*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/pseudepigrapha) from the *etymonline* website: > **pseudepigrapha**(n.)
"books or writings of false authorship," 1620s (implied in *pseudepigraphical*), especially of spurious writing professing to be Biblical in character and inspired in authorship, from Modern Latin use of Greek neuter plural of *pseudepigraphos* "with false title," from *pseudos* "a lie" (see [pseudo-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/pseudo-)) + *epigraphē "a writing" (see [epigraph](https://www.etymonline.com/word/epigraph)) . **Note**: I mean what internal evidence in 1 Enoch do you have that it was first written 300 BC, and not pre-flood by Enoch 7th from Adam? I know a lot of people like to refer to authority figures, and majority to get their opinions, but for this question I am asking for *internal evidence*. Actually you can use evidence from archaeological writings/inscriptions from the Ancient Near East to argue against it if you want, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls.

One of the most intriguing events in the Genesis accounts of creation is the way Adam tries to pass the blame for the fall to God, was Adam really trying to make God feel responsible for the fall by saying that if God had not created for him the woman, then there wouldn't be a fall in the first place? > And the man answered, “The woman whom You gave me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” - *Genesis 3:12 (Berean Standard Bible)* Was Adam blaming Eve or trying to make God feel responsible by insinuating that if God had not given him the woman, he would have remained sinless?

In [Genesis 5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%205&version=ESV) , some of the descendants of Adam are listed with their ages. The people listed lived very much longer than anybody does today. For example, Adam lived to be 930. The oldest age, 969 years, is listed for Methuselah. How did these people live so long? Does the Bible explain this at all?

Jesus seemed to be focused on the destruction of Jerusalem when discussing end times. The Revelation clearly says these events would take place SOON. If we connect what Jesus said in the gospels to Revelation, it seems that the old “Adamic” creation, from Abel to Zechariah, was judged and done away with after the Resurrection. Jesus said he was the first born of the new creation. So it seems the end of the old creation culminated at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Would this be an accurate interpretation of events?

After the Fall, was the protoevangelium transmitted to all men so much so that all men have knowledge of the protoevangelium even if that knowledge was distorted? Every mythology has something analogous to the protoevangelium. Also, everyone descends from Adam and Eve, so Adam would have told his offspring about the protoevangelium.

How do we know from the Bible that Adam and Eve have been saved from the lake of fire? According to my knowledge, it is a fairly unanimous position among the Oriental Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the mainstream Protestantism (I mean those protestants those who directly address Jesus by His name in their prayers) that Adam and Eve are saved and therefore will not go to the lake of fire in future eternity. Usually, this verse is cited: > "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy > seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his > heel." (Genesis 3:15, KJV) However, the language here is rather metaphorical, and to me it looks like an overreach to claim that this verse definitively states that Adam and Eve are saved. So, has there been any attempt within Christianity—I am sure there has—to provide a logical and exhaustive proof from other parts of Scripture, both the Old Testament and the New Testament, that Adam and Eve are saved from the lake of fire?

Genesis 2:7 NKJV > 7 And **the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life**; and man became a living being. Ezekiel 37:1-14 NKJV > 37 The hand of the Lord came upon me and brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley; and it was full of bones. 2 Then He caused me to pass by them all around, and behold, there were very many in the open valley; and indeed they were very dry. 3 And He said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” > > So I answered, “O Lord God, You know.” > > 4 Again He said to me, “Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! 5 Thus says the Lord God to these bones: **“Surely I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live**. 6 **I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put breath in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I am the Lord**.” ’ ” > > 7 So I prophesied as I was commanded; **and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and suddenly a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to bone**. 8 **Indeed, as I looked, the sinews and the flesh came upon them, and the skin covered them over; but there was no breath in them**. > > 9 Also He said to me, “Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.” ’ ” 10 **So I prophesied as He commanded me, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great army**. > > 11 Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, ‘Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 Then you shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. 14 I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken it and performed it,” says the Lord.’ ” Ezekiel 37 offers a vivid and detailed depiction of God's power to instantly create a biological body, breathe life into it, and make it a living being. This rapid, almost instantaneous process contrasts sharply with the millions of years of gradual changes proposed by evolution. Does this not provide insight into the interpretation of Genesis 2:7? If so, how do theistic evolutionists reconcile this with their understanding of Adam's creation within the broader framework of the theory of evolution?

The answer to another question referenced a website that discusses the LDS endowment ceremony . I was looking through the part about creation and was a bit surprised to see that the angel Michael actually takes on flesh and becomes Adam. I had read that Brigham Young had once taught the so-called "Adam-God" theory, but I had never heard the "Adam-Michael" concept. > JEHOVAH: Brethren and sisters, this is Michael, who helped form the earth. When he awakens from the sleep which we have caused to come upon him, he will be known as Adam and, having forgotten all, will have become as a little child. So, my question is, "What specifically is the basis for the LDS teaching that Michael took on flesh and became Adam, the first man?" Is this in the D & C or anywhere else in particular? *With apologies to anyone who might be offended by this question... I understand that this is from the sacred endowment ceremony. However, I am asking just about the doctrine itself, which happens to appear in the endowment ceremony. I am assuming that the basis for the doctrine is not the ceremony itself, but comes from elsewhere. That is what I am asking about.*

When Adam was created, there was no sin in this world. We are told that the wages of sin are death. My assumption therefore would be that prior to sin, nothing died. So this leads me to a bit of a dilemma, is the biocycle (for example composting) death? Below are some commentaries on Genesis 2:15 (from biblehub.com): > To dress it and to keep it.—The first word literally means to work it; > for though a paradise, yet the garden had to be tilled and planted. > Seeds must be sown and the cultivated plots kept in order; but all > this really added to Adam’s happiness, because the adâmâh, as yet > uncursed, responded willingly to the husbandman’s care. The other > word, “to keep it,” implies, however, some difficulty and danger. > Though no unpropitious weather, nor blight nor mildew, spoiled the > crop, yet apparently it had to be guarded against the incursion of > wild animals and birds, and protected even against the violence of > winds and the burning heat of the sun. > Also, there is true pleasure in the business God calls us to, and > employs us in. Adam could not have been happy if he had been idle: it > is still God's law, He that will not work has no right to eat, 2Th > 3:10. > Having prepared the garden for man's reception, the Lord God took the > man. "Not physically lifting him up and putting him down in the > garden, but simply exerting an influence upon him which induced him, > in the exercise of his free agency, to go. He went in consequence of a > secret impulse or an open command of his Maker" (Bush). And put him > into the garden; literally, caused him to rest in it as an abode of > happiness and peace. To dress it. I.e. to till, cultivate, and work > it. This would almost seem to hint that the aurea aetas of classical > poetry was but a dream - a reminiscence of Eden, perhaps, but > idealized. Even the plants, flowers, and trees of Eden stood in need > of cultivation from the hand of man, and would speedily have > degenerated without his attention. And to keep it. Neither were the > animals all so peaceful and domesticated that Adam did not need to > fence his garden against their depredations. **Doubtless there is here > too an ominous hint of the existence of that greater adversary against > whom he was appointed to watch.** This suggests to me that Lucifer may have already been cast down to the earth prior to the creation of man as I cannot see what relevance degradation would have to a perfect creation? Even tilling the soil does not seem at all consistent with the reason why we do it today. We till the soil today because it serves the purpose of keeping weeds at bay and ensuring adequite aeration of the soil, however, surely in a perfect creation, the many animals and creatures that dig would have served this purpose in the biocycle of the garden? It makes me wonder why the need for Adam to cultivate...was it because of the presence of Satan already in the garden adversely influencing God's creation even before Adam and Eve sinned? If the above is true, then this would seem to me to indicate that the universal impact of Lucifer's rebellion had far greater consequences than just the sin of Adam and Eve...it [evil] had already begun to exert his influence even over creation before man sinned...Adam was in fact tending the garden to guard against it. So this seems to suggest to me that the early Eden biocycle may have been at risk of infection by sin outside that of the sin of man. Does this mean the biocycle was a sinful process...it would seem that if Adam needed to tend to the garden (pruning, cultivating, dressing etc), there was in fact a less than adequite cycle of life at the time of his creation. I am not a theistic evolutionist, however, if they were to jump on this bandwagon? Thoughts?

So The Bible in The Book of Genesis describes that Adam and Eve were created as *immortal*,But this *immortal* is not equal to the Godly *immortal* as its tied to a law, if Adam and Eve break the law of God then they lose all rights to access this *immortality*. Proof that Adam and Eve were immortal prior to the fall. **Genesis 2:17** > but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die The verse above means that as long as Adam and Eve avoided the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the were never going to die. It can also be noted that this *immortality* needs the *Tree of Life* for perpetuation. God seals access to the *Tree of Life* to prevent Adam and Eve from eating of it to leave forever as sinners. Check out the verse below for more details. **Genesis 3:22** >And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. In order to protect the tree above then a flaming sword that turns in all directions was placed at the East of the garden after Adam and Eve are sent out. It could also be that the devil was jealous of Adam's and Eve immortality and lied to them so that they would lose it. But also this was part of the plan as Abraham sacrificing Isaac was a foreshadowing of God sacrificing the Christ for the sins of the whole world. So did Jesus come to restore the immortality that Adam and Eve lost? Is this immortality the same as that the enjoyed in the garden? Will Jesus allow the saints to eat from the tree of life?

Robert Grosseteste argues that Adam prophesied the mystical marriage of Christ with the Chirch in Genesis 2:24 and Ephesians 5:32 ([Hunter, _If Adam Had Not Sinned_](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=8901) 2020, pp. 93-4): > Adam prophesied, before his fall, the marriage of Christ and the church, saying, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and will cleave to his wife, and there will be two in one flesh." About this the Apostle said, "This great mystery is of Christ and the church." \[...\] while knowing and believing nothing about the sin of the human race, which was to come, he believed in the marriage of Christ and the church. > > _DCL_ III.1.20; p. 127, 3–6: "Item, Adam ante lapsum suum prophetavit matrimonium Christi et ecclesiæ, dicens: _Quamobrem relinquet homo patrem et matrem et ad­ herebit uxori sue; et erunt duo in carne una._ De quo dicit apostolus: _Sacramentum est hoc magnum in Christo et ecclesia_." \[...\] _DCL_ III.1.20; p. 127, 13–15: "Nihil igitur de peccato humani generis quod esset futurum sciens vel credens, credidit matromonium Christi et ecclesiæ." Is this a common interpretation of Genesis 2:24 and Ephesians 5:32 , or did other Church fathers or doctors hold this view?

I don't think I have ever heard either a Christian or a Jew or anyone else really refer to Adam and Eve by their race/religion. It appears as if they are considered "pre-race" or "pre-religion". If they consider Adam/Eve to have a race or religion, were they considered Jews?

As per title, I read -- in a very uninformed way -- of these traditions, among many others, in regards to March, 25th: > A) it would be the date of the creation of the world > > B) it would be the date of the creation of Adam and Eve > > C) it would be the date of the original sin "A" seems to me, that it conflates with the other ones. That prompted me to look more carefully into this. That's why I'm asking what did people use to say, possibly when and where, to get a better idea.

I came across an article on the existence of Pre-Adamite beings. The article refutes their existence but claims it is a belief held by "many evangelicals". As far as I can find, no major denomination endorses this teaching. Nor could I find any official statements addressing/rejecting it at all. Do any mainstream denominations have a stance on this issue?

Where did God create Adam according to scripture? Is this in the garden or somewhere else according to scripture.

This question is about this section in Journal of Discourses, Vol 1, p.50 (approx. half-way down the page): > When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it > with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He > helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, > the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is > our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. > Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, > must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, > organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of > the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and > every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was > brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, > the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until > after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the > forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and > therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived > the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He > was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the > first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was > begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the > tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of > Adam and Eve I chose to include a rather large section to show that the term "Father" is in the section used only about Adam. The question I have is however only about this part in above text: > When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had > begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy > Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; From other postings at this site (such as in the accepted answer to this question ) I understand that the Mormon church does not officially view material in the Journal of Discourses as doctrine. On another hand it looks like above section contains text that is currently viewed as part of the official doctrine, such as the concept that Adam is also Archangel Michael . For this reason I wanted to ask about the statement, that seems to be made above, that Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Spirit but by Adam. 1. Does the Mormon church currently believe that Adam made Mary pregnant? 2. If this is the case, is Adam viewed as having been in the flesh or as a spirit being when he made Mary pregnant?

We know there is only suppositions that Satan was probably the "snake", but nothing solid proves this. However many times, even today, we say "that bitch slapped me", or that "dirty rat" hit me on the head... and so forth, neither of which assume we are speaking of a dog or a rat respectively. There is no reason ignore this of the "snake" in Eden, as no scripture says otherwise. Keep in mind there are many things "cultural that are left out when books of the Bible were written. We may say "I drove to the grocery store", yet what is the word "drove?" How fast? etc.. But we leave that out in the paper, because it is obvious. This may be true of the Serpent. Further more you can see there is a hint in Gen 3:14, that whoever/whatever Eve was conversing with, was already UPRIGHT - standing, or flying if we are dealing with Nephilim. God cursed "it" to the ground on "its" belly. To eat dirt for the rest of "its" life. so it is quite possible that the dirty rat conned Eve. I have not found any scripture that says This is Satan, Are the churches teaching it literal? If so why?