RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Hi Bethany, you wrote:
 
The a'dam in the garden, up until 2:22 is not really a man in the sense
of being male. Until the woman (isha) shows up, you don't actually have
a man (ish), just this a'dam figure. It really doesn't become a proper
name until the end of ch. 2, and ch.3. Dr. Iain Provan feels that the
best translation of a'dam up until that point is something more like
"groundling", "dirtling", or (if it hadn't already been stolen by
sci-fi) "earthling". It's not talking about one male human. Please
discuss!
 
There is a likelihood Gen. 1:1 - 2:3 was originally from another source
than Gen. 2:4 following and that an editor or compiler, Moses perhaps,
put them in sequence. Genesis 1 may be referring to generic mankind or
it could be Adam persona, but that doesn't seem to be the issue. From
Genesis 2:4 forward I think there can be little doubt this is Adam,
husband of Eve, father to Cain, Abel and Seth. When Israel died,
"Israel" became the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, yet 'adam is
rendered "man." This is due to the belief that all men descended from
him, however, for those precious few of us who recognize that mankind
has a longer history, these are instances where "Adamite" or "Adamites"
would have been more accurate.
 
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
 <http://www.historicalgenesis.com/> www.historicalgenesis.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 26 00:14:12 2008