Why Gen. 5 combines Gen. 1 with Gen. 2&3

From: MikeSatterlee@cs.com
Date: Tue May 14 2002 - 00:41:53 EDT

  • Next message: Adrian Teo: "Catholic Church and Morality"

    Jim wrote: Paul Seely wrote >> If you want to get even closer to the Bible,
    combine "the Adam" of Gen 1:26, 27 with "the Adam" of Gen 2:7, 8, 15, 16, 18,
    19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 3:8, 9, 12, 20, 22, 24; so that the individual man Adam
    is indistinguishable from "the Adam" of Gen 1:26, 27. That is what Gen 5:1, 2
    does: In 5:1 "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that
    God created Adam, in the likeness of God made he him." Adam is used without
    the article, indicating an individual name, which is at least a sure
    interpretation in the phrase, "book of the generations of Adam" (note also
    the singular pronoun "him.") Then 5:2 says, "male and female created he
    _them_, and blessed _them_, and called _their_ name Adam, in the day when
    they were created." "Their name Adam" uses Adam without the article and the
    next verse shows that the individual Adam of Gen 2 is indeed the one being
    spoken of; but the "them," "them," "their" take you back to Gen 1:26, "male
    and female created he them." So, the Bible identifies the individual Adam of
    Gen 2 with the "them" of Gen 1:26, 27. The Bible does not separate the Adam
    of Gen 2 from "the Adam" of Gen 1:26, 27.

    Jim also wrote: it seems that [Paul] has made a clear case that the creation
    of Gen 1:26-27 is the same as the creation in Gen 2.

    Paul made a good case. But not an airtight one. And I do not believe a
    correct one. For I remain convinced that Gen. 1: 26-30 describes God's
    creation of the human race long before His creation of Adam and Eve, and that
    Gen. 2 and 3 describe God's creation of Adam and Eve long after His creation
    of the human race.

    Paul says that the writer of Gen. 5:1, 2 combines "the Adam" of Gen. 1:26, 27
    with "the Adam" of Gen. chapters 2 and 3. And he says that by doing so the
    writer was clearly indicating that the man 'adam of Gen. 1 was the man Adam
    of Gen. 2. However, this is only an assumption on his part which is entirely
    based on the fact that the writer of Gen. 5 uses the same phraseology to
    refer to both of these creation accounts.

    However, I believe that the writer of Genesis 5 deliberately used the same
    phraseology to describe two separate creative acts. Why would he have done
    so? Because those two creative acts were so similar in content, and because
    the second one described in Gen. 2, God's creation of Adam and Eve, was
    intended by God to dramatically reenact the first one described in Gen. 1,
    God's creation of the human race.

    God created the man He named "Adam" from preexisting life, the dust of the
    ground, which when viewed under a microscope is seen to be filled with life,
    just as He had previously created the human race from preexisting life. God
    gave Adam a wife who came from his own gene pool, small as it was, just as
    the wives He had given to the men He had earlier created had come from their
    husbands' gene pools. God had a special relationship with Adam and Eve, as
    His relationship with the previously created human race was special in much
    the same way. God gave Adam and Eve a garden home in the middle of a barren
    land, just as the home He previously gave to the human race was the only
    "garden spot" in our barren solar system, and possibly the only "garden spot"
    in our entire barren universe. God made all the animals in Eden subject to
    Adam and Eve, just as He had subjected all animals on earth to the human race
    He had previously created. God covered Adam and Eve's shameful condition,
    their nakedness, with coverings (animal skins) He Himself had made, coverings
    which required the shedding of blood. Just as God Himself had earlier made
    provision for covering over the shameful (sinful) condition of the entire
    race of man ('adam) He had previously made. A provision He made by means of a
    "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8)

    I could elaborate much further on this same theme. But I think you see how I
    understand the story of Adam and Eve, and why I think God's choice of the
    personal name "Adam" for the man He created and placed in Eden was a very
    appropriate one. I think you also see why I think the writer of Gen. 5:1, 2
    would have deliberately referred in a composite manner to both the men 'adam
    of Gen. 1:26, 27 and the man Adam of Gen. chapters 2 and 3. For even though
    God's later creation of Adam and Eve was preceded in time by His earlier
    creation of the human race by what may have been 100,000 years or more, God
    intended His later creative acts to serve as a small scale reenactment of His
    earlier and larger set of creative acts.

    If this is the correct understanding of Genesis, it makes perfect sense that
    God would have chosen to name the man He created from the dust of the ground
    and placed in Eden, "Adam," after the race of men He had earlier created and
    whom He had earlier called "'adam." For by naming that man "Adam," God would
    have been making an unmistakably clear connection between His creation of the
    man "Adam" He created and placed in the garden of Eden and the race of man
    ('adam) He had previously created.

    Maybe an illustration will help. As I recently watched an actor reenact the
    life of Abraham Lincoln in a movie, I remarked to a fellow viewer, "Lincoln
    handled that situation quite well." In saying those words I was
    simultaneously referring to both the man Abraham Lincoln who lived in the
    1800s, and to the man who a movie director chose to reenact important events
    in Lincoln's life many years after they occurred.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 14 2002 - 14:09:22 EDT