On Sun, 29 Oct 1995 14:55:32 -0500 Glenn wrote:
>GM>On the other hand, I see no way to falisfy or verify your two Adam
>view. If I say that some character is indicative of humanity, you
>say it is emerging humanity. Exactly what would falsify your 2-Adam
>view?<<
>Stephen Jones replied:
SJ>Proving it does not fit the Bible or the scientific evidence. For
>example, if it is exegetically untenable that Gn 1 "man" is not the
>same as Gn 2 "Adam", then the "two-Adam model" is falsified. Or if
>Jesus in quoting from both Gn 1:27 and Gn 2:24 in Mt 19:4-5 is
>asserting that the "male and female" of Gn 1 is the same as the "man"
>and "wife" of Gn 2, then the model is falsified.<<
GM>In this regard, Dave Probert raised an interesting point that I
>never saw you respond to.
Dave's point related to Eve and I have responded to it on 2 November.
GM>Why, if the man of Genesis 1 is not the Adam of Genesis 2, does
>the Bible interchange the use of Adam and man? (If I understood Dave
>correctly.) That spurred me to do a little research. According to Strongs,
>the same hebrew word Adam is used in Genesis 1:27 as is used throughout
>chapter 2. I think I would feel better about your view if it were supported
>by a different word for man in Genesis 1 than in Genesis 2 and 3.
Here are some extracts from books I have:
"(4) [Adam], pr n.-(a) of the first man made, Gen. 2:7, seq. 3,4.
In these passages at least ADM assumes somewhat the nature of a proper
name, as denoting the man. as the only one of his kind; as Baal,
lord; Satan..." (Tregelles S.P., "Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee
Lexicon to the Old Testament", Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1949, p13)
"The name Adam ('adam), in addition to being a proper name, also has
the connotation 'mankind', a sense in which it occurs in the Old
Testament some 500 times, so that when the noun occurs with the
definite article (ha'adam) it is to be translated as the proper noun
rather than as the name. The word 'adm occurs also in Ugaritic in the
sense 'mankind'. In the accounts of the creation in Gn. i and ii the
article is used with 'adam in all but three cases: i. 26, where 'man'
in general is evidently intended; ii. 5, where 'a man' (or 'no man')
is clearly the most natural sense; and ii. 20, the first permissible
use of the proper name according to the text. The AV has projected
this use back into the preceding verse (ii. 19) in spite of the
article there, whereas the RV, observing that in this occurrence, and
indeed in all those (iii. 17, 21) without the article up to Gn. iv.
25 the name is prefixed by the preposition le- which might be read
(la-leha-) to include the article without alteration to the
consonantal text, prefers to assume that the Massoretes have wrongly
pointed the text and that the proper name does not occur until Gn.
iv. 25. Though attempts have been made to determine the etymology of
the name, there is no agreement, and the fact that the original
language of mankind was not Hebrew renders such theories academic. It
is clear, however, that the use of the word 'adama, 'ground', in
juxtaposition to the name 'adam in Gn. ii. 7 is intentional, a
conclusion reinforced by Gn. iii. 19." (Douglas J.D. Ed., "The New
Bible Dictionary", Inter-Varsity Fellowship: London, 1965, p13)
"In the creation account (e.g., Gen. 1:26; 2:7) the Hebrew word ADM
('adam), which is often used symbolically of the entire human race,
refers to the first man, who is anonymous. In other passages (e.g.,
Gen. 4:1; 5:3) it is a proper noun pointing to a specific individual
who came later." (Seeley, "Adam and Anthropology," p. 89, in Erickson
M.J., "Christian Theology", Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, p486).
"...the name 'Adam' also means mankind in general, as used in Genesis
4:1. The noun 'Adam' means 'man'-one taken from dust-but from chapter
2:14 onward it is also used in the Hebrew with the article as a proper
name." (Pearce E.K.V., "The Origin of Man", Crusade: London, 1967,
p10)
"The first two toledoths embodied in Genesis used to be taken as two
separate stories of creation, the second starting in Genesis 2:4. Now
that one can be regarded as a sequel to the other, many of our
difficulties concerning the Biblical origin of man can be solved.
This would mean that in Genesis 1, Old Stone Age man is described, the
Hebrew collective noun "adam" meaning mankind as a whole; but in Gen.
2:4, the second toledoth commences. This second toledoth makes the
characteristic brief summary of the preceding toledoth, and then
speaks mainly about Eden. Here the noun becomes "The Adam" or "the
Man", with the article referring to an individual, and then becomes a
proper name ' Adam' . This man named Adam is the individual from whom
our Lord's descent is eventually traced." (Pearce E.K.V., "Who Was
Adam?", Paternoster: Exeter, 1969, p21).
I have now done an exhuastive word study of all occurrences of Heb
'adam in Gn 1-5. The problem is that Strongs of itself does not show
up the different nuances of the word. The same root word 'adam means
"man" and "Adam", depending on the prefixes attached to it, and also
the context. The following are the three uses of the Heb. word 'adam
in the NIV:
1. Heb. adam: a. = "man": i. man as male and female (Gen 1:26;
5:1,2*); b. = "Adam" i. Adam* [Gen 4:25; 5:1*,3*,4*,5]
2. Heb. ha adam: a. = "the man": i. man as male and female (Gen
1:27); ii. Adam (Gen 2:7,8,15,16,18,19*,20*,21*,22,23*;
3:8,9*,12,22,24); b. = "Adam" (Gen 3:20*; Gen 4:1).
3. Heb. va adam a. = "a man" : i. man in general (Gen 2:5)
4. Heb. le adam a. = "man": i. Adam (Gen 2:20*,25); b. = "Adam" (Gen
3:17*,21*)
*AV "Adam"
The conclusion is that the Heb. supports (or at least allows) the "Gn
1 man - Gn 2 Adam" theory. In Gn 1:26-27, the Heb. adam and ha adam,
cannot be translated "Adam", and in fact they are not so rendered in
any translation AFAIK. OTOH, from Gn 2 onwards, the Heb. adam, ha
adam, and le adam are translated as both "man"and "Adam", depending
on the context.
[...]
GM>No this does not call your view a fable. Many geologists I work
>with believe that the flood was a fable. They point to the fact that
>there is no evidence for the flood. Fables do not leave evidence.
>Real floods do leave evidence. Stephen, don't be so quick to think
>my remark attacked your view. There will be no doubt when I do that.
>There is no evidence of the hydra Jason (or hercules) fought. It was
>a fable. If there was a flood, there should have been evidence.
Glenn says that "real floods do leave evidence" but seems not to
believe that a real God can ensure there is no evidence. I have given
good reasons why there was no sedimentary evidence for Noah's Flood:
(1) The parallel between the wind that caused the waters to abate in
Gn 8:1 and the Spirit of God in Gn 1:2. (2) The total lack of *any*
continuing physical evidence for *any* Biblical miracle. (3) The fact
that: (a) our geological sediment today would have been Noah's metres
thick carpet of stinking disease-carrying mud, covering the bodies of
Noah's former countrymen and their animals, and making life impossible
for most of the animals; and (b) there is no mention of that carpet of
mud in the Biblical account.
I see no point in continuing this Flood debate with Glenn, since he
simply ignores what I say. He seems hooked on the following
syllogism:
1. All floods leave sediment
2. Noah's deluge was a flood.
3. Therefore Noah's deluge must have left sediment.