Re: In the Image

Glenn Morton (
Sun, 02 Jun 1996 16:00:12

Dick wrote:

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

I presume you have control of what you make your scenario say. I too
believe that Adam is representative but he is also the progenitor of the
human race.

>You can't mix anthropology in with biblical sources very easily.

Why? You mix the Gilgamesh Epic in with the Bible all the time? And as I
have observed when the Bible contradicts the Gilgamesh Epic, it is the
Gilgamesh Epic which you believe is the correct version.

>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.

Then I must conclude that my wife should not have married me. Genesis
6:1-3 says that God takes a dim view of such intermarriages. Your view
seems to have certain overtones that I find disturbing. In light of that
verse, why is it OK for my wife to have married me when she is an Adamite
and I am not?

I wrote:

>>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. :-)
Dick replied:

>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.

So am I to understand you correcty that "ish" means non-Adamite except
when you say it doesn't? Similarly "adam" means Adamite except when you
say it doesn't? Why should occurring the the same sentence make any
difference. Why not when they appear in the same chapter or in the same
Biblical book by the same author? This is a very subjective
interpretational scheme.

>>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.

Genesis 6:5 where God says all the thoughts of mankind are wicked comes at
the end of the story about the intermarriages. God gives not other list of
sins with which to justify the destruction of mankind other than these

Foundation,Fall and Flood