An Old Idea I Had About The (Hebrew) Word "Adam" (relates to Quran also)

[ReptilianPeon]

As this topic relates to both the Bible and the Quran (and indeed any religion that calls itself Abrahamic*), I decided that it didn't it didn't fit into any specific religion section.

*Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Samaritanism, Christianity, Muhammadan, Druze, Mormon, Bahai, Rastafari and maybe Yazidi and Sabian too.

Anyway, this was something I posted before on a website known as the religiousforum, well over a year ago. Religiousforums is a website I was briefly active on before I joined this website. I no longer contribute there. I was accused of having an "agenda" by this Jewish person and I then subsequently decided to leave the website.

The idea was based on a curious video I saw by a Swiss university lecturer. My intention was simply to probe the question:
When Did People First Start Referring To Adam (in the Genesis creation account) as an individual?

In short, I wanted to explore the apparent change in the interpretation of the narrative provided the Genesis account of creation in the Bible. And how the change from seeing "Adam" as a common noun to a proper noun may have impacted the author(s) of the Quran. My theory is that the author(s) of the Quran were copying incorrect information from the Jews and Christians of the time, because as we know, genetic tells us humans did not all come from two individuals.


Read the original topic (on the other website), or read my ideas below. I shall now quote my post from the other website:

---

Why do I ask this question? Well, it has all to do with the Quran actually. And I am certain you can use what information I provide in your polemics as you will undoubtedly find it very useful. See, the Quran clearly states that a man named Adam was the first man and an angel named Iblis refused to bow to him (and, of course, this leads into the discussion of why fight against Allah when the Quran says you won't win - so what's the point. As soon as the End Times are triggered Iblis loses so all he has to do is sit back and relax and NOT do what the Quran/Hadith say he will do.). And therein is the reason behind the question. All Quran translations I use will be Yusuf Ali. If I’m wrong about the word “ādām” or its usage then my argument falls apart, but here goes.

*A search listing all the places where the Quran uses the word Adam for those wondering: Search results

I would go as far as to say that certain verses won't make sense unless we take the verses to mean that there was an individual by the name of Adam. E.g. Verses such as Quran 2:35 where it says:

“We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife…”

Quran 2.35 - Al Baqara (The cow) البقرة

The Quran also says that all the prophets descended from Adam (19:58), which further impedes the Muhammadan (yes I use that word and I have my reasons):

Quran 19.58 - Maryamn (Mary) مريم

Now to the crux of my question: In the original Hebrew of Genesis the word “ādām” (or "ha ādām*") is/was apparently used as a general term for humans (i.e. mankind; and I’ve heard it can refer to women too). The word "ādām", as used in the creation account, is said to appear in other parts of the Hebrew Bible too, as a general term for humans (and is therefore not used a proper noun in those cases), though I want to focus only on the creation account as described in the book of Genesis. It is apparently only after the Genesis creation account that individuals named Adam appear.

The website linked below (along with countless baby name websites) supports what I have stated above and describes the origin of the word, although it then goes on to mention the pop-culture Genisis creation account: Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Adam

And I quote the linked webpage: “This is the Hebrew word for "man". It could be ultimately derived from Hebrew אדם ('adam) meaning "to be red", referring to the ruddy colour of human skin…”

*See this short video by Universität Zürich (or at least the Power Point slides are; a short excerpt from an English language lecture):





Full lecture here: Sexuality and the Bible: What the Texts Really Say - FORA.tv

So, an individual named Adam was not the first human according to the original Hebrew. Apparently, people didn’t start referring to Adam as an individual until after Genesis was originally written, and it seems the Quran picks up on this – unless the other option is correct: Maybe there really were two people, one called Adam and the other Eve, and Quran agrees with the pop-culture interpretation of the Bible simply because Muhammad was right.

So my question really is: Did the change from the word being only a general term for humans (a common noun) to it (also) being the name of an individual (a proper noun) occur before or after Muhammad? There are clear implications whichever is the case.

If the change occurred before Muhammad then it adds credence to the theory that he was merely copying stories he heard. As a merchant he would have conversed with many people since he must have travelled quite a bit. The Quran does appear to assume that Muhammad's followers have at least basic knowledge of Judeo-Christian stories and teachings so it's reasonable to assume Christian and Jewish stories were floating about southern/central Arabia (with maybe some Zarathustrian influences mixed in too - because those of Zarathustra’s religion pray five times day too).

Many of the main characters (for lack of a better word) in the Bible also appear in the Quran, for example, although the stores are usually different to those of the Bible. E.g. Quran (27:16-19) describes ants verbally communicating* with King Solomon and how Allah has taught him “the speech of birds*” (whatever that is):

*Tafsir for verse 27:16: Tafsirs etc / Quran verse 27.16 - An Naml (The ant) النمل

*Tafsir for verse 27:18: Tafsirs etc / Quran verse 27.18 - An Naml (The ant) النمل

Verses 27:16-19: “And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)" (16) And before Solomon were marshalled his hosts,- of Jinns and men and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks. (17) At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it." (18) So he smiled, amused at her speech; and he said: "O my Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours, which thou hast bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by Thy Grace, to the ranks of Thy righteous Servants."(19)

The change in narrative from common noun to proper noun (during translation?) might be seen by some as an example of Biblical ‘corruption’ - something Muhammad was meant to have corrected. A careful analysis of the human genome shows that it is impossible that all humans on Earth descended from exactly two people. And the idea that all humans descended from two people is even problematic if one subscribes to the Theory of Evolution because the obvious question is: When did humans start being human?

*Humans that don’t come from sub-Saharan Africa interbred with Neanderthals (because sub-Saharan Africans don’t contain Neanderthal DNA):

Thoroughly modern humans interbred with Neanderthals - life - 22 October 2014 - New Scientist

Therefore, we can say that the original Hebrew of the Bible, if indeed the word "ādām" used is a general term in that context, is more correct than the Quran (which was supposed to correct it) which clearly states that there was an individual named Adam who was the first man. Which, leads me to the assumption that people were using the word "ādām" as a proper noun before Muhammad was born, but I need proof of this. It'll be very hard for people to wriggle out of this problem, given that Muhammad was sent with the supposed intent of fixing Biblical errors. I’m not sure what kind of apologetics will attempt to rectify this potentially egregious error since people don’t seem to be talking about it.

One might argue that Biblical stories, and by extension the Quran, where influenced by other cultures of the time and that there are similarities with earlier stories and the Abrahamic tradition (which is the basis for such books as: “Did Moses Exist? The Myth Of The Israelite Lawgiver”, which is on my reading list). However, this isn't what I want to argue, however interesting the proposition may be.

---

I then went on a silly tangent about the motivations behind Allah allowing the Bible to become corrupted:

Why might the Bible have been changed?

---

Well, the Quran appears to have the answer. Rather than simply say Allah refused to protect prior scripture, there are several verses which could be used to explain the changing narrative. Maybe Allah took away somebodies free-will? Here I attempt to connect some dots:

Quran (39:52): “Know they not that Allah enlarges the provision or restricts it, for any He pleases? Verily, in this are Signs for those who believe!”

Provisions may have been restricted because:

Quran (3:26): “Say: "O Allah! Lord of Power (And Rule), Thou givest power to whom Thou pleasest, and Thou strippest off power from whom Thou pleasest: Thou enduest with honour whom Thou pleasest, and Thou bringest low whom Thou pleasest: In Thy hand is all good. Verily, over all things Thou hast power.”

And their power may have been taken away because:

Quran (6:112): “Likewise did We make for every Messenger an enemy,- evil ones among men and jinns, inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of deception. If thy Lord had so planned, they would not have done it: so leave them and their inventions alone.”

And the reason for these enemies is because:

Quran (6:88): “This is the guidance of Allah: He giveth that guidance to whom He pleaseth, of His worshippers. If they were to join other gods with Him, all that they did would be vain for them.”

And Quran (2:8-10): “Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day;" but they do not (really) believe. (8) Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not! (9) In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves). (10)”

Although that (2:10) could simply be Allah giving people cardiovascular trouble because the heart is an organ whose purpose is to pump blood.

Or it might have simply been:

Quran (13:13): “Nay, thunder repeateth His praises, and so do the angels, with awe: He flingeth the loud-voiced thunder-bolts, and therewith He striketh whomsoever He will.. yet these (are the men) who (dare to) dispute about Allah, with the strength of His power (supreme)!”

---

Congratulations if you got through all that! I hope I haven't wasted my time...

[Wyrd of Gawd]

In the biblical fairy tale Adam & Eve lived without any religion and without any real rules. They were free to do as they pleased. Cain even killed Abel without suffering any real consequences. It was only after they became city builders that they got organized religion and religious rituals.