Alice's Take on Adam and Eve

Adam was created from dust and thus not born. No parents. The parents otherwise would not of been created from dust on creation week. Eve was taken out of adam. This because the readers would understand no other options for her birth.
Its very clear and all the bible backs this simple conclusion.
Saying there is others comes only from modern evolutionism wild ideas of fossils or its basic hypthesis.
Not evidence to sink your teeth into.

There is nothing in evolutionary science that contradicts this. Have read this yet?

Entirely consistent with the genetic evidence, it is possible Adam was created out of dust, and Eve out of his rib, less than 10,000 years ago in a divinely created garden where God might dwell with them, the first beings with opportunity to be in a relationship with Him. Perhaps their fall brought accountability for sin to all their descendants. Leaving the Garden, their offspring blended with their neighbors in the surrounding towns. In this way, they became genealogical ancestors of all those in recorded history. Adam and Eve, here, are the single-couple progenitors of all mankind. Even if this scenario is false or unnecessary, nothing in evolutionary science unsettles this story. So, evolution presses in a very limited way on our understanding of Adam and Eve, only suggesting (alongside Scripture) that their lineage was not pure.

From Alice facebook page:

“Then the LORD God formed a man [adam] from the dust of the ground [adamah] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Genesis 2:7

The Hebrew words adam and adamah represent a word play. The Hebrew אדם ('adam) also means “to be red”, referring to the ruddy color of human skin as with Esau (Gen. 26), a ruler of Edom, and David who had Edomite ancestry. If we consider the Akkadian word adamu, which means “to make”, we find another play on words.

Jeff A. Benner, an expert on ancient Hebrew, explains:

"We are all familiar with the name “Adam” as found in the book of Genesis, but what does it really mean? Let us begin by looking at its roots. This word/name is a child root derived from the parent דם meaning, “blood”. By placing the letter א in front of the parent root, the child root אדם is formed and is related in meaning to דם (blood).

By examing a few other words derived from the child root אדם we can see a common meaning in them all. The Hebrew word אדמה (adamah) is the feminine form of אדם meaning “ground” (see Genesis 2:7). The word/name אדום (Edom) means “red”. Each of these words have the common meaning of “red”. Dam is the “red” blood, adamah is the “red” ground, edom is the color “red” and adam is the “red” man. There is one other connection between “adam” and “adamah” as seen in Genesis 2:7 which states that “the adam” was formed out of the “adamah”.

In the ancient Hebrew world, a person’s name was not simply an identifier but descriptive of one’s character. As Adam was formed out of the ground, his name identifies his origins."

The Biblical writers recognized that the people among them with a red skin tone had an ancestral line of extreme antiquity. Some of these people were rulers in Edom. These are listed in Genesis 36

Edom was called “Idumea” by the ancient Greeks. Idumea means land of red people. Ancient Edom extended on a north-south axis from Hebron to Beersheba. This was Abraham’s territory. His half-sister wife, Sarah, resided in Hebron. His patrilineal cousin wife, Keturah, resided in the area of Beersheba. Both locations appear on this map of Idumea.


@deuteroKJ do you have any comments on this word study?

I am still a long way from making a pilgrimage to Ark Encounter. :sunglasses:

1 Like

Remember…The Ark Encounter or The Bible Museum?

The Bible Museum I will probably get to as it is in Washington instead of Kentucky, it has been corrected by FFRF historians, and its free instead of $48.

1 Like

I though you were Going to the Ark Museum! a while back…what happened?

Under Alice’s model, it is possible to find ancient genomes of the priestly group on this controlled linage. In theory you can find the ancient genome of founders of that group in an ancient grave site. Adam and Eve are just the root of a linage of priests. Nothing magical. Genesis is a story about them written in a mythological way.

1 Like

BS. clearly 'adam and 'adamah displays a wordplay, but speculating on etymological formulation beyond that is ridiculous. The Adam/Edom (both from same Hebrew consonants) is interesting in light of the quote of Amos 9 in in Acts 15. But the focus on “blood” (dam) seems to be totally wrongheaded. It’s like looking at “butterfly” and trying to think of some connection to “butter” and “fly.”


Can you elaborate?


It is hardly as clear as you say!

Genesis 1 describes birds being created BEFORE land animals. Genesis 2, focusing on the Garden of Eden (much like an incubator, but apparently a moral test ground!) describes birds being created WITH the land animals of Eden.

Genesis 1 describes both multiple men and women (without details of a special creation) being made after all the animals of the world.

Genesis 2 describes a single human being made of dust… then the creation of animals for Eden… and THEN the creation of Eve.

But most importantly, Genesis 1 describes ALL TREES as fit to ear from… with no qualifications!

But Genesis 2 introduces the special setting of Eden… and the one tree that is now in existence… the one tree with a moral dimension… and it is NOT fit to eat!


“that they may possess the remnant of Edom [אדם 'dm] and all the nations who are called by my name,” declares the LORD who does this. (Amos 9:12)

The LXX, has “in order that those remaining of humans [from anthropos, reading 'adam rather then 'edom] and all the nations upon whom my name has been called might seek out me, says the Lord who does these things.”

This is picked up in Acts 15:17: “that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the nations/Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things.”

So the same Hebrew consonants for both readings. The two different readings aren’t that far off b/c Edom sometimes stands in as a representative of all Gentile nations (often in negative contexts). I suspect the easy wordplay contributed to this.

Back in Gen 2, there may be connection to reddish dirt/clay that also contributed. But I’ve never heard of the blood stuff, and it smells like one of those made up etymological fallacies.

1 Like

I’ve never heard this before. Is it published yet? I’m wondering about the larger implications of that double reading…

Very common phenomenon in LXX studies and NT quoting OT. A good resource for your shelf is this.

As far as implications, scholars divide at times (I don’t know on this one in particular). It certainly has implications for inspiration and inerrancy, i.e,. our definitions need to allow for the flexibility of the text, re-purposing beyond original context, etc.

Josh has asked me to be nice to the visiting scholars, but I’ll just have to be blunt, here. Jeff Benner is not the backwoods hick that makes up “BS”, like you’ve alleged, @deuteroKJ.
It’s simply your own prejudice to say so. He works with paleo-Hebrew, to get at the meaning conveyed by what were, essentially, originally, pictographic letters in the oldest Hebrew alphabet. It would appear as though you’ve never seriously interacted with just how ancient the source texts are, and how languages transition to more and more complex expression from relatively simple and rather piecemeal roots, comparatively. Frankly, I don’t trust your “nose” on this one. Go encounter Benner on his own terms at the Ancient Hebrew Research Center, before you simply dismiss him out of hand.
I’ll wait patiently for a more nuanced and sober assessment, if you please. Don’t let this be one of those “crown versus millstone” occasions you so rightly eschew.
“Etymological speculation” is at the root of analyzing, studying and discerning the meaning of EVERY ancient language by scholars; it is disingenuous to insinuate otherwise. It is the work of scholars to engage in, compare and contrast, and then work towards consensus on speculative new hypotheses constantly, not just in the scientific enterprise.
Laugh me off if you want, but I count this as a bit of a deserved upbraiding. Peace!

1 Like

Funny, I don’t remember any such allegation about the man. (Incidentally, he did build his own log cabin in Mississippi and is seeking to go “off the grid”; so I don’t think he’d mind the label “backwoods” if it ever had been used of him.) I called “BS” on the argument made. Benner’s expertise is nuclear engineering. His bio doesn’t specify how he learned Hebrew, but it does reveal that he knows he’s working outside the mainstream. Fine but it’s something I take into account as I evaluate.

I’m familiar with Benner’s work, as well as others in this sort of network (along with guys like Alan Horvath and Brad Scott). I reject both their underlying presuppositions and speculative conclusions. First, paleo-Hebrew is a script; to call it a language is not a given. Of course Classical Hebrew, like all languages, evolved out of something, but it not clear what exactly. Isaiah called it the “lip of Canaan” (19:18). We simply don’t have enough ancient texts to put together a good picture. Speculation and modeling is fine as long as we realize how tentative it all is and don’t try to use this as a basis for interpretation.

I agree that Hebrew vocabulary often involves word pictures. I also agree that paleo-Hebrew letters had a sort of pictogram sense. But, what I reject is that we can go back to the letters within a word and come up with some hidden meaning. This is a species of the etymological fallacy. Our goal in interpretation is to understand words (and sentences, etc.) as the original authors intended. I do not see these authors doing what these paleo-Hebrew guys do. The NT writers don’t do any of this as well. In fact, Jesus seemed content to make a rhetorical point based on the Aramaic script (the “jot and tittle” phrase in Matt 5:18, which would not make sense from a paleo-Hebrew perspective).

Now, some of the speculations I do find interesting. There may be a nuance here or there, but nothing that would uncover a massive interpretive change to a text. But I’ve also seen this approached used by the often heterodox Hebrew Roots Movement toward dangerous ends.

I think the biblical authors used sources. How ancient they are is unknown. Even if I grant you everything I’m still wondering the point of relevance for interpreting the biblical text. It’s the text that is inspired, not the sources. It is the text that is the object of interpretation, not the sources. It is the text that carries authority, not the sources.

I think I agree. At this stage, however, the consensus lies elsewhere. And, based on my reasons above, I am not motivated to chase these sorts of rabbits. (Remember, Joshua asked my opinion, which is the only reason I said anything.)


The primary reason Lucy is not considered fully human is the size of the brain cavity. However, the size was perfectly proportional to the body size, and anthropologists will tell you that complexity of thought is not determined by brain size.

Kenneth Tanner may be interested in some of the articles at Just Genesis. Here is the INDEX.

1 Like

There are mythic elements certainly in the creation narratives. However, when we get to the king lists of Genesis 4, 5, 10, 11, 25 and 36, we find that we are dealing with historical persons. This has been demonstrated through analysis of the kinship pattern of these ruler-priests, specially in the consistent marriage and ascendancy pattern.