On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Bill Hamilton wrote:
> Denis writes
> >
> There is no
> >article in Gen. 1:26, but it is present in Gen 1:27. Get yourself The
> >NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament and you can see it for
> >yourself. You will see that in v.27 there is an "open square" looking
> >character with a "T" looking character below it that is added to "Adam"
> >(remember it is added from the right because in Hebrew we go from right to
> >left)--that is the definite article. I have also confirmed this finding
> >with the Massoretic Text (the standard Hebrew manuscript) and there is NO
> >contention whatsoever with regard to these verses from a text criticism
> >perspective.
> >
> >So Glenn, you and your friends are right.
> >
>
> Denis,
>
> You've answered the question about the presence/absence of definite
> articles, but I'm not convinced you've put the "two Adam" model to rest.
You are 100%. If I had to rewrite the post I would definitely add that
all I am doing is affirming Glenn's understanding of the Hebrew text in
Gen 1. I am making no comment on the "two Adam" theory.
Unfortunately, because of my lack of precision I opened myself up to
being interpreted as one who does not accept the theory because of the
grammar. As my post stands, it is easy to conflate my
grammatical comments with a dismissal of the "two Adam" theory.
However, if I remember correctly, Glenn cited someone who
erroneously was making the case for the theory from the Hebrew. My point
was simply that this other individual, as Glenn noted, was dead wrong.
Sorry for the confusion. Your critique is quite judicious.
Now if you asked me directly what I think of the "two Adam" theory, here
is my answer: it is another concordism hermeneutic, the product of the
incorrect introduction of 20th century categories into the exegesis of an
ANE text (do read Dennis L. Durst's latest post, I think he is right on).
In a word, it is eisegetical. You cannot employ intellectual categories
in an intellectual milieu where they have never existed--they would have
no meaning.
As always brother,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; name=s1
Content-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91.951202094711.52428C@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca>
Content-Description:
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------