Re: Adam vs. 'adam

From: Dick Fischer (dickfischer@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Apr 25 2002 - 22:29:34 EDT

  • Next message: MikeSatterlee@cs.com: "Men before Adam"

    Mike wrote:

    >Dick Fischer wrote: An early Adam works for Glenn, a late Adam works for me,
    >and along comes Mike who prefers two Adams over one.
    >
    >I responded: I believe there was only one biblical man who was named "Adam."
    >His creation by God is clearly described in Genesis chapter two. I simply
    >believe that Genesis 1:26-30, which does not mention the man "Adam," is
    >describing God's creation of the human race prior to His creation of "Adam."
    >Such an understanding hardly amounts to believing in "two Adams."
    >
    >Dick then wrote: Whether you choose to translate 'adam as "Adam" or "man," I
    >can assure it is the same 'adam throughout Genesis. In other words, 'adam in
    >Genesis 1:27 is nameless in your opinion?
    >
    >That, of course, is what I mean. As you know, the Hebrew word for man, 'adam,
    >is used in a generic way to refer to the entire human race several times in
    >Genesis.

    Only because translators suffered from a lack of knowledge and we, who should
    know better, don't.

    > That being the case, would it be either fair or accurate of me to
    >tell people that you believe there was more than one Adam, with a capital A?
    >You know it would not be. I took that comment as a cheap shot.

    Sorry, that was how I interpreted what I thought you said you
    believed. Apparently you believe in somebody (nameless) who was
    created in God's image from whom we all descend. Along came Adam
    6,000 - 7,000 years ago who was also created in the image of God.

    Although you could make a case that Adam was such an important
    biblical figure that even his name ('adam) became generic for "man,"
    it would be harder to establish a rationale for why men were called
    'adam before there even was an Adam. Especially when there is
    another name for man that could have been used - 'ish. Had it been
    the intent of the writer of Genesis to refer to those who he thought
    were prior to Adam, I am certain the word for "man" would not have
    been 'adam.

    > But since I
    >like you, I'll forget about it, this time. Just don't let it happen again or
    >I'll have to change my plans to order copies of your book for all 5,000
    >members my church. : )

    You really know how to hurt a guy.

    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 : Fri Apr 26 2002 - 00:02:17 EDT