Re: Special Creation

My problem with your view is that if God "fashioned, made"
Adam from existing materials, why didnt the author use the
same word that he used for Eve when she was fashioned out
of Adam's rib?

Hmmm... (I want to be a little careful about calling this "my" view BTW --
it seems plausible to me, but so do some of the other views)... Why does
this create a problem for you?

Under the view I'm proposing, the materials and processes God used to create
Adam were different than those He used to create Eve, so that might explain
the difference in word choice. It's interesting that there is perhaps a
progression from Gen. 1:27 ("male and female he created" - - "barah") to
Gen. 2:7 (God "formed" Adam -- "yastar" -- a word used elsewhere in the
Bible for ordinary conception) to Gen 2:22 (God "made" Eve -- "banah" -- to
build). Perhaps the difference between "yastar" and "banah" here reflect
the difference between starting with genetic building blocks to make a new
entity ("species" if we want to use that kind of terminology) and making
another of the same species outside the ordinary process of conception. Or
perhaps "banah" is used of Eve instead of "yastar" to communicate a closer
connection between she and Adam than the connection between Adam and the
hominid stuff from which he was formed.

I've also stumbled across some Jewish literature suggesting that the Hebrew
roots of the different words we translate "formed" and "made" suggest
differences in the personal qualities of men and women -- "made" apparently
has a root that relates to wisdom. So, perhaps the difference in words is
simply a literary device without any significance relating to the manner in
which Adam and Eve were created.

I admit, though, that I'm way out of my depth regarding the exact meanings
and etymologies of these Hebrew words.

On 3/1/06, drsyme@cablespeed.com <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 07:57:10 -0600
> "Walley, John " <John.Walley@BellSouth.com> wrote:
> > There is another important theological point that is
> >being missed here
> > as well. If Adam was not the first human and the Imago
> >Dei did not make
> > him genetically different from the others, there is
> >nothing to prevent
> > his offspring from interbreeding with them, and then
> >considering a local
> > non-universal flood, this opens a can of worms of
> >implications about
> > modern man that I don't think any of us want to
> >consider.
> >
> > I think this is in part why there is a tendency among
> >some to keep Adam
> > the product of special creation.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>
>
> But if special creation means that Adam was created
> unrelated to existing creatures, the scientific evidence
> is clearly against this.
>
> For David:
> My problem with your view is that if God "fashioned, made"
> Adam from existing materials, why didnt the author use the
> same word that he used for Eve when she was fashioned out
> of Adam's rib?
>
Received on Wed Mar 1 14:11:13 2006