Re: In the Image

Dick Fischer (
Sun, 02 Jun 1996 12:27:31 -0500

Glenn Wrote

>While I know you have tried to make Adam a representative for the entire
>human race, the apparent meaning of Num 23:19 along with your commentary,
>would seem to indicate that Adam was no representative of anyone except
>the Adamites.

I don't think it was ME who made Adam representative. I would point to
a much higher authority.

>Of course, if you include Genesis 10 into the equation, you might be able
>to include me with the Adamites through Japheth. But you would need to
>move the date of the Flood way back to accomodate archeological evidence
>from NW Europe which I cited above.. But what do you do with the American
>Indians who are not so fortunate to have been included overtly in the
>Table of Nations? Are they classified as those who "do not repent of
>their sins before God"?

You can't mix anthropology in with biblical sources very easily. Adam
entered a populated world. All the races were in place including native
Americans. The flood was judgment upon the Adamites. After the flood
the Adamite clan mixed with the Sumerians to form the Babylonians, all
easily dated at around 1700 BC to 2000 BC.

>One more question. In Genesis 19:8 Lot says that he has two daughters
>which have never slept with an man[ish]. Does this mean that prior to
>this event, his daughters might have slept with 100 Adamite men[adam]
>each? Could it be that Lot was therefore saying that his daughters were
>not as nice and friendly to the local boys as they were to the Adamite
>boys? No wonder the crowd was so angry. :-)

There are instances where 'ish and 'adam appear almost interchangeably.
You can't say "Adamite" everywhere you read 'adam, or "Non-Adamite" every
time you see 'ish. When 'adam and 'ish are in the same sentence a
distinction should be drawn that accounts for the differences.

>This would lead to an interesting re-interpretation of the events. Since
>Genesis 6:1-3 seems to forbid the intermarriage of the Adamites with the
>non-Adamites it would be a logical thing for Lot to impregnate his own
>daughters since there were no Adamite boys around anymore to marry them.
>Presumably the boys they were engaged to prior to the destruction of Sodom
>were Adamites.

Gen. 6:1-3 should not be taken as forbidding, but recognizing the existence
of the intermarriages. Read about Noah and see that his marital
circumstances and children are markedly distinct from his forebears and
his successors. Noah has no children until he is 500 years old! He has
three sons only, no sons and daughters after the three boys. It is possible,
I would say likely that Noah married outside the clan.

>Like all good non-Adamites, I do my best to make the Adamites engage in
>bad behaviors. I must keep up the family tradition. :-)

Speaking as another non-Adamite, I am sure glad Christ said to preach the
gospel to every creature - that gets you and I into the family as adoptive
heirs where we can rest secure in our salvation and carry on these
discussions just like we had good sense.

Dick Fischer
* *
* *
* An Answer in the Creation - Evolution Debate *
* *
* Web page - *
* *