Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically

Dick -

You feel quite free, when it suits your purpose, to criticize (usually just by assertion) the KJV translation but then quote it in an uncritical way when - again - it suits your purpose. Of course bene 'adham in Dt.32:8 is literally "sons of Adam" but it takes only a little acquaintance with Hebrew usage to know that the phrase "sons of X" often means not "men whose father" is X but "members of the class X" - e.g., "sons of the prophets." Thus NRSV translates the phrase in question from Dt as "when he divided humankind" and NIV has "when he divided all mankind."

Furthermore, while the Masoretic text does have the last part of the verse as "according to the number of the sons of Israel (bene yisr'ael)", a Qumran mss has "sons of God" and LXX aggelon Theou, "angels of God" (which is of course one sense of the Hebrew "sons of God" = "godlike beings"). NRSV has "according to the number of the god", with "the Israelites" as the marginal reading, while NIV reverses this (with "sons of God" in the margin). The latter reading makes more sense, the idea being that each of the nations is assigned a "guardian angel". (Cf. Daniel 10:13 & 12:1). OTOH it's hard to see what it means to say that the nations were divided according to the number of the Israelites.

Which of course is not to deny that in some places in the Bible Adam is used as a personal name. But your appeal to Dt.32:8 fails completely.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dick Fischer
  To: GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com
  Cc: gregoryarago@yahoo.ca ; muzhogg@netspace.net.au ; asa@lists.calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically

  Well, to George's point:

  "Adam IS mankind."

  George, this is just a dogmatic assertion in the face of contrary evidence. There is no leg upon which you can stand.

  Consider Deut 32:8: “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

  Not only is the writer saying that Adam was a father who had sons, he is linking the posterity directly to Israel. That’s been my point all along.

  I would like to see the pen and ink corrections to Luke 3:38: “ … which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”

  How does “mankind” fit in that verse? Or fit “mankind” in Romans 5:14: “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”

  Was Enoch the seventh from “mankind” in Jude 1:14? I don’t think so.

  So if we just assume the Bible writers, and Josephus, and the writer of Jubliees, and the unknown chroniclers whose works were destroyed over the centuries knew of what they wrote, then Adam was a person who lived in southern Mesopotamia, land of the Tigris and Euphrates, about 7,000 years ago and started the Semitic race. What is so hard to understand about that?
  Okay, some theological assumptions may be wrong. Change them!

  Dick Fischer
  www.historicalgenesis.com

  Oct 5, 2009 07:29:39 PM, GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com wrote:

    
    No, what I accept is that "Adam" - "the man" - in Gen.2 & 3 is a theological representative of the human race. My statement "Adam IS mankind" is a bit strong but deliberately so to set it off from Dick's claim that Adam was "an emissary to humanity."

    Shalom
    George
    http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Gregory Arago
      To: George Murphy ; Dick Fischer
      Cc: dickfischer@verizon.net ; muzhogg@netspace.net.au ; asa@lists.calvin.edu
      Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 5:26 PM
      Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically

      George Murphy wrote: "Adam IS mankind."

      If that is the case, George, and if you accept the logic *there must have been a first,* then do you accept that the 'first human' was ADAM, i.e. the first of 'mankind' or 'humanity'? If not, then why not? Are you a *degree, not kind* guy?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
      To: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
      Cc: dickfischer@verizon.net; muzhogg@netspace.net.au; asa@lists.calvin.edu
      Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2009 12:47:31 AM
      Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically

      
      When humankind (not just a single individual) is said to be created in the image & likeness of God in Gen.1:2, it's quite legitimate (IMO) to interpret the following words, "and let them [N.B.] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thin that creeps upon the earth" (NRSV). I.e., humans are to be God's representatives in ruling the other creatures of the world. The word "emissary" is really too weak for this. But more importantly, there is no suggestion that oen human being is commissioned to be an emissary to other human beings. So the point remains, there is no canonical texts that says - ot implies - "that Adam was God’s emissary to mankind." Adam IS mankind.

      Shalom
      George
      http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 6 13:00:46 2009