RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Hi Bethany, you wrote:
 
<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.<
 
It rather appears that Adam, or Adamu in Akkadian, was his proper name
and through time his name became associated with mankind. The
graveyards of southern Mesopotamia held records of the interred and
Adamu appears frequently. I found a Canaanite governor and an Assyrian
king also named Adamu. A Sumerian inscription refers to a list of
slaves as the "Adambi," or "from Adam." And I have mentioned before on
this list that there are two pyramids in Egypt with inscriptions dated
to 2400 BC that talk about a primeval creation and the one created was
called "Atum."
 
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
 <http://www.historicalgenesis.com> www.historicalgenesis.com
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Bethany Sollereder
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 1:14 PM
To: Dick Fischer
Cc: ASA
Subject: 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
 <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 Tue May 27 10:08:29 2008