Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Hey Dick,

Genesis 1 is definitely referring to a general, generic type of human.
Otherwise the phrase "And God created the a'dam in his own image, male and
female he created them". Here, the a'dam figure refers to both the male and
female figures being created. If the Hebrew author had wanted to, he
certainly could have pluralized a'dam into a'damim. But he doesn't. It is
left singular. I would like to suggest, that a similar technique is used in
chapter 2, where the a'dam figure that we see in v.4-22 is not Adam the man
in ch. 3. It is a sexless groundling who is meant to toil the ground. The
a'dam becomes what we know as humans when the creation of the woman also
causes the creation of the man.

I realize that the belief that all men were descended from Adam was why he
was called "Adam", I just don't think we encounter that particular patriarch
until after 2:22.

Bethany

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
wrote:

> 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
> 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 13:14:21 2008