Hi Dick,
I said,
>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.
You replied:
<<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?>>
My only point is that there is no objective basis in Hebrew usage for making
a distinction between the people referred to as 'ish and those referred to as
'adam. The Bible gives no support for the Pre-Adamite theory in the use of
these words. You have to read Pre-Adamite theory into these words.
To my statement
<<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, <>
You replied,
<< 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.
<<SNIP 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.>>
I said the _ultimate_ reference is to the Messiah. Even if Ps 80:17 refers
to the people of Israel, it can still have an ultimate reference to Christ
for he is the antitype to the people of Israel (Matt 2:15) and he is
certaintly the ultimate man at God's right hand (Ps 110:1, 5).
But, be that as it may, the idea that 'enowsh refers to people in rebellion
against God or to non-Adamites does not harmonize with your example in
Daniel. As you said, "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.)" If we follow your supposed meanings of
'enowsh, Daniel is saying that the Messiah looks like someone in rebellion
against God. Surely this is not the meaning. Or, Daniel is saying that the
Messiah looks like a non-Adamite, someone not made in the image of God.
Either alternative suggests an insult to the Messiah or worse.
Your meaning for 'enowsh is not upheld by this text; nor is there any other
biblical evidence that it refers to a different line of descent or to people
not in covenant with God. As with 'ish, you can read the Pre-Adamite theory
into the word, but there is no objective basis in the biblical usage for
making such a distinction.
I said
>Au contraire, Christ is called the "son of Adam" in Luke 3:38.>>
You replied
<< 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.">>
Of course, it is Seth; but, the genealogy is of Christ. Luke 3:31 says, "the
son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Matthatha, the son of Nathan, the
son of David." Would you say it is not calling Jesus "the son of David"
simply because Nathan is the son of David? If Jesus is rightfully called "the
son of David," then he is also rightfully called "the son of Adam." And why
shouldn't he be? On your theory, the Messiah is an Adamite isn't he? And,
isn't the Messiah in covenant with God? You're arguing against your own
theory!
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 22 2000 - 17:35:05 EST