Hi Paul, you wrote
>With reference to Isa 3:15, 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.
As I have said earlier, all the evidence is not biblical. The Bible says Adam
was
created out of the dust, scientifically we know that generic man evolved from
primates. If Adam is that same man, tell me what are his roots, where did he
come from, and when did he live?
>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."
The entirety of the Old Testament points to the coming of Christ. This
Psalm,
however, does not, in my humble opinion. Yet, read it for yourself.
Psalm 80
[1] Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock;
thou
that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth.
[2] Before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh stir up thy strength, and come
and save us.
[3] Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.
[4] O LORD God of hosts, how long wilt thou be angry against the prayer of
thy
people?
[5] Thou feedest them with the bread of tears; and givest them tears to drink
in
great measure.
[6] Thou makest us a strife unto our neighboursand our enemies laugh among
themselves.
[7] Turn us again, O God of hosts, and cause thy face to shine; and we
shall be
saved.
[8] Thou hast brought a vine out of Egyptthou hast cast out the heathen, and
planted it.
[9] Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and
it
filled the land.
[10] The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof
were
like the goodly cedars.
[11] She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river.
[12] Why hast thou then broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass
by the way do pluck her?
[13] The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field
doth
devour it.
[14] Return, we beseech thee, O God of hostslook down from heaven, and
behold, and visit this vine;
[15] And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that
thou madest strong for thyself.
[16] It is burned with fire, it is cut downthey perish at the rebuke of thy
countenance.
[17] Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man
whom thou madest strong for thyself.
[18] So will not we go back from theequicken us, and we will call upon
thy name.
[19] Turn us again, O LORD God of hosts, cause thy face to shine; and we
shall be saved.
Is God not addressed as the "Shepherd of Israel" in verse 1?
Was the "vine" out of Egypt (v.8) not Moses and his multitudes? Were the
Heathen not cast out of the promised land to make room for the Israelites
(v.9)?
And was "the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that
thou madest strong for thyself" not the nation of Israel?
Now, "Let thy hand be upon the man ('adam) of thy right hand, upon the son
of man (bene 'adam) whom thou madest strong for thyself" means let your
hand be upon your own people, the children of Israel, the descendants of
Adam.
This is exactly my point. Because you make no distinction, you miss the
meaning.
>Au contraire, Christ is called the "son of Adam" in Luke 3:38.
Well, for the benefit of those who have no Bibles to look at, here is Luke
3:37-38
"Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the
son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of
Adam, which was the son of God."
Not trying to be picky, Paul, but it looks like its "Seth."
>I am wondering if your tools for searching Scripture are adequate.
I do wear reading glasses.
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 : Mon Mar 20 2000 - 22:41:30 EST