>Genesis 2:23 uses both 'adam and 'ish to refer to the same individual.
>Since Hebrew poetry is based on parallelism, often saying much the same
>thing in two parallel lines, the occurrence of two different words or
>phrases in corresponding places in parallel lines does not make the two
>concepts mutually exclusive. The lexicons I have seen tend to indicate
>that 'adam usually (but not always) means human being, and 'ish usually
>(but not always) refers to an adult male human.
Traditionally, conservatives have believed that this man Adam was
literally the father of the human race. And liberals have held that
Adam, while not an actual person, at least was a stand-in for
humanity. So using "man" and "Adam" somewhat interchangeably works
for either group, whether one takes Genesis literally or
figuratively. Translators, who write the lexicons as well, have been
on safe ground.
For one to deviate from the accepted norm, they better have good
reasons. I have offered the "good reasons" to regard a real-live,
flesh and blood, neolithic Adam as a late entry into the human race,
which started many thousands of years before Adam was cultivating his
garden in Eden.
It is not a question similar to whether the flood was at 2350 BC, or
2900 BC, or 3150 BC, or even at the time of the filling of the Black
Sea. These dates vary by no more than 3,000 years. But the
antiquity of the human race goes back at least 100,000 years, and
maybe 4 million! The modern setting of Adam, the connecting
genealogies, the corroborating, extra-biblical evidence taken all
together should preclude the nonchalant translation that has endured
Bad translation has obscured what we may have long ago discovered had
the translators paid any attention to the obvious signals in the
Scriptures. When bene 'adam and bene 'ish (literally, sons of Adam
and sons of man) appeared in the same sentence it should have raised
a red flag.
Using Adam and man indiscriminately in Bible translations is a
testimony to ignorance that should not persist. So I cite the
supporting historic data and evidence and make my appeal to common
sense. But I am only one small voice. I can only hope that other
small voices will join the chorus.
Yours in Christ,
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 03 2002 - 12:07:07 EDT