Hi Dick,
you wrote
<< The word 'ish has a broader scope than 'adam. Just as "man" has a broader
meaning than "American." A recent immigrant to this country is caught in
between. Even an immigrant who becomes an U. S. citizen may call
himself either an American or call himself by his former nationality. I see
the Bible writers in the same situation by the time of Moses. But Ezekiel
was
addressed as "son of Adam" (bene 'adam) repeatedly, indicating where he
stood with God. Translators, not recognizing any distinction, translate the
phrase, "son of man" starting in Exek.2:1. I believe this is a mistake.>>
With reference to Isa 31:5, you earlier wrote, "had the translators any
awareness that 'adam and 'ish signified two distinct populations, those who
remain faithful to God and those who rebelled against God..." Since as you
say above, "'ish has a broader scope than 'adam" and as I pointed out refers
more than once to people who are both descendants of Adam and who remain
faithful to God, there is no logical linguistic basis for saying the two
words refer to two distinct populations.
<< Likewise Daniel is another example. Pointing to the coming Messiah,
Daniel
relates a vision: "... and, behold, one like the Son of man ('enowsh) came
with the clouds of heaven ..." (Dan. 7:13). Yet Daniel is addressed:
"Understand
O son of man (bene 'adam): for at the time of the end shall be the
vision" (Dan. 8:17). Should there be no distinction between a prophet and
the coming Christ? Are Daniel and Christ synonymous?>>
The phrase, "one like the Son of man ('enowsh)..." simply means that the
person had the appearance of being a human being. Psalm 80:17 also refers to
a "son of man"; and the ultimate reference is to the Messiah, "the man of thy
right hand." Yet in Psalm 80:17, the son of man is "son of 'adam." So, as
with 'ish and 'adam, I think distinctions between 'enowsh and 'adam are also
unfounded linguistically and arbitrary.
<<In the New Testament, occasionally Christ is called "son of David," but
more
often, "son of man." All four of the gospels include this phrase repeatedly
respecting Christ. We also find "son of man" in Acts 7:56, Heb. 2:6, and
Rev. 1:13; 14:14. In every instance "man" is the Greek anthropos meaning
"human." The phrase "son of man" should be reserved for Christ who is
nowhere called the "son of Adam." To differentiate, a prophet should be
called "son of Adam," in my estimation, not "son of man.">>
Au contraire, Christ is called the "son of Adam" in Luke 3:38.
I am wondering if your tools for searching Scripture are adequate. May I
recommend The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance and the The
Englishman's Greek Concordance. Or the computer program Bible Works from
Hermeneutika.
Best wishes,
Paul
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
-------------------- >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 19 2000 - 16:23:22 EST