Hi Dick,
You wrote:
The Sumerians weren't descendants [of Adam], and they lived in the same
region [described in Gen 10]. That we know historically. Biblically, we
also know the Hebrews were aware of others who were not in their line of
descent.
PS Gen 10:32 seems to imply that Shinar where Sumeria was located (10:10) was
a nation which came from one of the sons of Noah (10:32). This verse does
not seem to harmonize very well with the idea that the Sumerians were not
descendants of Noah. In any case I do not see anything in Scripture which
positively implies the Sumerians were not descendants of Noah.
DF In Deuteronomy 2:10,11, "The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people
great and many, and tall as the Anakims; which also were accounted giants,
as the
Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims." The Anakims were a race of
giants, descendants of Anak, who dwelled in southern Canaan. Emims were
as tall as Anakims, the Bible attests, and were the ancient inhabitants of
Moab. In Deuteronomy 2:20,21, "That also was accounted a land of giants:
giants
dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; a people
great and many and tall as the Anakims; but the Lord destroyed them before
them;
and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead." Joshua mentions "remnant
of the giants," "giants," or "valley of the giants" in five verses
(Josh. 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16).
Post-flood Emims, Anakims, or Zamzummims cannot be identified as
Ubaidans, Sumerians, or Persians, but likewise, they do not appear to be
any of Noah's kin either.>>
PS Emim is the name which the Moabites gave to the Rephaim (Deut 2:10,11).
Zamzummim is the name which the Ammonites gave to the Rephaim (Deut 2:20).
The Anakim are also Rephaim (Deut 2:10,11). And all are giants. The Bible
does not tell us where the Rephaim came from; but, since we know the Anakim
were Canaanites (Joshua 15:14--note the sons' names, then see Judges 1:10);
and the Canaanites were the descendants of Noah (Gen 9:22), it is probable
that the other Rephaim were also the descendants of Noah.
PS Now as to the Hebrew words "adam" "ish" and "enowsh", are you saying
1. "adam" is only used to refer to people who are either descended from Adam
(through Noah) or are in covenant with God or the context also mentions
beasts.
DF I don't see any exceptions to that.
PS 2. "ish" and "enowsh" are only used to refer to people who are either not
descended from Adam (through Noah) or are not in covenant with God or the
context mentions women?
DF That is the gist of what I am saying. Bible translators never saw this,
and so it isn't seen in translations to the detriment of interpretation.
When 'adam and 'ish appear together, the translators awkward choices out of
ignorance made.
One example of this is in Isaiah. Look at the second chapter.
Isa. 2:2,4: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain
of
the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and
shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it"
“And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and
they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into
pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall
they learn war any more.”
When this happens what will be the result? "And the mean man (‘adam)
boweth down, and the great man (‘ish) humbleth himself: therefore forgive
them not" (Isaiah 2:9).
We might have understood that both Adamites and non-Adamites will be
humbled before the Lord, but the translators didn't understand it, and
decided for some reason known only to God that "mean" and "great" would
suffice.
PS I believe the translators saw Isa 2:9 as saying that both the rich and the
poor, that is the "great" and the"small" were both bowing down to idols.
This is probably based on Psalm 49:2 (literally) "Both sons of 'adam and sons
of 'ish, rich and poor together." Although the parallelism is chiastic, sons
of 'adam would be identified with the poor since "sons of 'adam" regularly
refers to mankind as created and weak compared to God.
DF Look at Isaiah 31. "Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay
on
horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen,
because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel,
neither seek the LORD!" (Isa.31:1.
This was an admonition to Mizraim (Noah's grandson) and his kin. The
prophet
goes on to say that the Lord will defend Jerusalem and preserve it against
its attackers (Isa. 31:5), and he pronounces judgment on the Assyrians:
"Then
shall the Assyrian fall with the sword, not of a mighty man (‘ish); and the
sword, not of a mean man (‘adam), shall devour him" (Isa.31:8). Again, had
the
translators any awareness that 'adam and 'ish signified two distinct
populations, those who remained faithful to God and those who rebelled
against God, they could have snuffed out the creation-evolution debate in
1611.
PS It would be nice if it were really this simple, but I see no biblical
reason to think that even the rebellious populations were not descended from
Adam; and I see along with the translators that "'adam" is used elsewhere to
refer to people who rebelled against God (as you admitted with the idolatrous
nations mentioned in 2Kgs 19:17,18) and "'ish" is used elsewhere to refer to
those faithful to God.
Examples of people both descended from Adam and faithful to God but called
"'ish" are:
Noah (Gen 6:9) "...Noah was a righteous 'ish..."
Isaac (Gen 24:65) "...who is this 'ish..." and (Gen 26:13) "and the 'ish
became great..."
Jacob (Gen 30:43) "and the 'ish increased exceedingly and had many flocks,
..." and (Gen 42:11) "We are all sons of one 'ish...";
Joseph (Gen 39:2) "And Jehovah was with Joseph and he was a prosperous
'ish...";
The brothers of Joseph (Gen 47:2) "And from his brethren he took five
'anoshim (the plural of "'ish")...";
The king of Israel (even Messiah) (Ps 80:17) "Let thy hand be upon the 'ish
of thy right hand, upon the son of 'adam..."
I do not see as many clear instances of "'enowsh" being used of people
faithful to God; but, neither is it used clearly to distinguish people in
rebellion against him. Rather, it is a generic word for man-as-such and is
used in parallel with "'adam", as in Job 25:6 "How much less 'enowsh that is
a worm, and the son of 'adam that is a worm";
Job 36:25 "All 'adam have looked thereon, 'enowsh looked from afar";
Psalm 8:4 "What is 'enowsh that thou art mindful of him, or the son of 'adam
that thou visitest him?";
Isa 56:2 "Blessed is the 'enowsh that doeth this, and the son of 'adam that
holdeth it fast..." and others. These verses are using the words "'enowsh"
and "'adam" as synonyms. There is nothing in these verses which suggests
that "'enowsh" is referring to one kind of people and "'adam" to a different
kind, rather they suggest that the people designated as 'enowsh are identical
with sons of 'adam.
DF Adam (the Hebrew 'adam) is first applied to the man created in the image
of
God and placed in the garden. This usage should be retained in
translations. For example, "God created Adam [not "man"] in his own image
..." (Gen. 1:27). "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day
that God created Adam [not "man"] in the likeness of God made He him" (Gen.
5:1). After
Adam's death, starting with Genesis 6, a variation should be used such as
"son of Adam," "descendants of Adam," "Adamite," or "Adamites." There
may be room for an occasional exception where an extension of meaning may
be applied to all of humankind. For example, Romans 1:16 uses "Greek" as
a collective for all who were not Jews.
PS You could say that "'adam" only refers to people who are descendants of
Adam and who are in the image of God, but that would not logically
necessitate that people not so designated are not descendants of Adam or not
have the image of God. Also, given, as you admit, that "'adam" is used of
both people in covenant with God and of people not in covenant with God (but
descended from Adam), you cannot logically come back around and say "'adam"
just refers to people in covenant with God. The Bible does not support the
idea that a distinction should be made between "Adamites" and other people.
So far as the Bible is concerned, all people are "Adamites."
Scripture's use of the words, "'adam," "'ish" and "'enowsh" does not supply
any biblical basis for believing in Pre-Adamites. You can read a Pre-Adamite
theory into some verses; but, these words do not suggest such a theory.
Overall, these words are synonyms and are applied to all human beings without
distinction.
Paul S.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 13:34:44 EST