Do we agree that chapter 1 is presenting that humans were created before Adam ever even comes on the scene? Notice I left out the “imago Dei” qualification to enable your agreement.
1 Like
We do. Let’s focus on that.
Given that agreement, I’m all ears for how you would translate and comment upon Genesis 1:26-27 vis-a-vis the “image of God.” Regrettably, have not come across that in the little bit I’ve read in the Kindle version of
your book yet. Any ancient Hebrew culturally-informed translation you want to offer here?
Guy first of all thank you for tackling that book. It does take several chapters to build to that, because I show that 1:27 is handled the same way the other days are handled. It will seem like I am just pulling something out of thin air if I start with that before this groundwork has been laid. Just one hint- the Hebrews had a tradition that certain things on earth were mere copies or shadows of their true and perfect form in the High Heaven, the land above. Other than that, I am afraid the only way I see “getting it” from here is the long way of going through the careful case I build in the book.
OTOH I think I can show you why those of us who believe in any two-population model need the view which I suggest.- that 1:27 is a list of three things rather than one event described three ways. If we don’t accept that then it is difficult to get around the conclusion that the text is talking about only the creation of a SINGLE man on earth.
Here is a link to an interlinear of 1:27
And God created (the) man in His own image
In the image of God created He him
Male and female created He them.
The interlinear will have a line separating the first segment from the other two. That means something too, but that is not our present focus. Nor is the inclusion of the definite article “the” in the first segment what I want to focus on, as I have tried to do before. No one can believe that the translators have been doing it wrong even as they look directly at the Hebrew which shows just that. What I want to focus on are the pronouns in the second and third parts. Some translations use the plural for both parts, but others keep the pronoun for the second part singular. So this is not an issue of me defying all the translators because the translations are divided on it.
Guess what, the Hebrew clearly shows the second segment with a singular pronoun. It says “o-tow” there vs. “o-tam” in the last segment. Check on the link to the interlinear to confirm what I say.
So the second segment is talking about the creation of a single individual. If the third segment is talking about the same event then it is talking about the creation of one male and an unknown number (but presumably one) female(s). If it’s only describing one event in verse 27 then that event is the creation of a single man. Since Adam in chapter two is described repeatedly with the exact same term - ha-adam, it is hard to resist the implication that “him” is Adam. But even if its saying God created some other singular man way before Adam you still run into all the MRCA problems our host has pointed out. Not to mention how forced and inelegant that would seem as literature.
Whether or not the first segment says “the man” or “man”, if the verse is speaking of a single event it is speaking of the creation of a single human man on the earth, not a population of them.
The team needs what I am saying, they just don’t know it yet.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that the presence of the Hebrew article renders the corresponding word as NOT a proper name, so it can’t be about “Adam.”
The presence of the article, does, however, specify a definite “man,” which you’re correct to describe as singular, given that the noun is not plural. This a definite, singular, particular “man” (“groundling” or “earthling” catches even more of the Hebrew nuance), who has been "created in God’s image, who is, nevertheless, described in the next sentence as “male and female, created in God’s image.”
First of all, did you notice that this tripartite statement comprises a chiasm? http://www.chiasmusxchange.com/2016/11/19/genesis-127/ As a poetic and or mnemonic device, it signals emphasis and importance. It is repetitive for those purposes, and not to be taken as three different actions, to my knowledge, but considered symmetrically as of one piece. With that in mind, I have no problem with your proposal of it also possibly serving as a kind of prophetic foreshadowing, given the nature of progressive revelation, but I have a great deal of problems with the notion that the Son was somehow “created” at this point, even if you locate that “in heaven.”
Second, the use of the definite article is often invoked after something is identified in context first without the article, to emphasize particularity in what ensues. https://www.scribd.com/document/168170529/Determination-and-the-Definite-Article-in-Biblical-Hebrew
And so, it would seem, we are to understand that there was a particular “man” who was first endowed with God’s likeness/image, --which as a de minimus interpretation, means able to hear and understand God’s words in the creation mandate, and thus to have the knowledge of, and be in relation to, God. That is, to have a pretty sophisticated and functioning mental AND spiritual aspect to him, a former “nephesh” turned “nephesh hayyah” -who is immediately also described as having been “created male and female in God’s image” which dispels any notion of male superiority --both equally partake in His image.
While Adam, in chapter 2, is in continuity with this “imago Dei” human/ity, is obvious from the prefatory remarks in that chapter, but there is no indication Adam is contemporaneous with what takes place in Genesis 1:26-27 and ff.
Not even in chapter 2 can “ha-adam” be identied as Adam, because of the presence of the Hebrew article.
So now you know, at least, what a Hebrew scholar might disagree with you over, as regards the meaning of the language, which directly affects the English translation.
Can you show me a reference to the antiquity of the Hebrew notion that things “on earth” get mentioned as happening contemporaneously “in heaven?” Or however you want to word that?
I hope to digest your book more thoroughly, but it helps to sort out these premises --and even objections, first. It will allow me to be most understanding as I go through and encounter surprising and/or objectionable things, while appreciating what we share in common.
Cheers!
1 Like
It is not Adam as a proper name, but Adam was not used as a proper name in chapter two either. It is also “ha-adam” throughout that chapter, with maybe one exception. So he was “the man” and his name was “Adam”. The form in chapter two is the same used here in 1:27.
Actually that is tricky too. It is a noun like “deer” which is the same whether singular or plural. So “ha-adam” could also mean “the men” to refer to a particular group of more than one man. Just “adam” means mankind, as in 1:26. In the case of 1:27 though, if it is repetition then it should be “the man” singular because the next segment uses the singular pronoun translated “him”.
It is of one piece in the sense that these things were done to implement God’s plan to “make Man in our own image” (1:26).
I don’t think the Son was created. The Son is the Logos, uncreated. The heavenly man who is both God and Man, is both created and uncreated. And from our perspective on earth it is a foreshadowing because we don’t see it from earth yet. The book puts this together and I really can’t do it here.
Your link fits perfectly with what I am saying. The goal has always been Christ and the church and this was “the Man” from the first part of 1:27 with the second segment being Adam the echo on earth. That is, to the extent it applies at all. It may just be saying something like “King David went out to war. THE king commanded his troops to encircle the city.”
Yep. Adam.
Those words you have in quotes are not in the text. Those created “male and female” are not said to be in God’s image. That’s one hint that this phrase is not solely speaking about the same act. It has nothing to so with male superiority. That is more clear if you understand it my way. To the extent this segment is referring to humanity generally and not also making a statement about the first two segments, the males are not in the image of God yet either.
You should take another look at this. The article is present in chapter two as well. That’s what I’ve been trying to say. This is an indication that this is the same man. Otherwise you are back to the idea of a sole male progenitor for humanity that is not the pre-incarnate Christ, and not Adam, but who is called the exact same thing- ha-adam.
Everything you have shown me so far indicates that a Hebrew scholar would see it my way, but I have had an open call for some time for one to come in and walk us through it.
Yep. Well, we would not see it as contemporaneously. That is why the YEC are wrong. Have you gotten to the part about creation and time in the book yet? Things that are accomplished in heaven quickly take a long time to work out here. The copy takes a long time to manifest what already is in heaven.
Scripture. Hebrews 8:5 They serve at a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary. That is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle, “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”
and Hebrews 9:24 For Christ did not enter a man-made copy of the true sanctuary, but He entered heaven itself, now to appear on our behalf in the presence of God.
According to Colossi-ans 2 even the Sabbaths and New Moons and Festivals were just shadows of what was to come- Christ. This is why the order of these things varies depending on where we are looking from. He came in heaven before the shadows that He cast. When far from the light the shadows reach us before the One who cast them does, but the one who cast them was still first.
PS- maybe you can take comfort for the fact that I read a sequential advent of humanity vs Adam in the accounts even if I don’t see the accounts themselves as straight up sequential.
II’m an OT/Hebrew Professor. You’re mistaken about the necessary reference of the singular pronoun in v. 27. As you note the antecedent (‘adam) is a collective noun (thus always grammaticlly singular, whether referring to an individual or group). If it’s is meant to be a group, then a subsequent pronoun could either be singular (to show grammatical congruity) or plural (to show conceptual congruity). Both are legit in Hebrew…only larger context can decide.
Also, be careful not to make too much of the article in v. 27. Though Hebrew is closer to Greek in the use of articulation, they are not identical. The article could simply be a reference back to the ‘adam in v. 26 (I.e., this ‘adam).
2 Likes
I think all this is viable—I’m still wrestling with it myself. Only one minor pushback. The lack of ‘bara’ in ch.2 says nothing about whether ch.2 is a creation account. You don’t need need this in your argument. It assumes too much technicality of the Hebrew language. Clearly ‘asah (forming) is creational terminology, used in both chs. I don’t know if you’re assuming a special meaning of bara’ as well. (It’s only special quality is that God is the only subject…but the word itself does not have an overly-specific meaning itself.) I enjoy this discussion!
2 Likes
Well Professor I am glad to see you here. I do hope to pick your brain a bit about this and other passages.
Now when I speak of a collective noun I am referring to verse 1:26*. That is a collective noun. I should think that the antecedent to the “o-tow” in the second segment of verse 27 is the ha-adam in the first segment of verse 27. After all the verb is different in verses 26 and 27. His intention is to make (asah) in verse 26. What He does to bring that intention to reality is create (bara) in verse 27.
So is the antecedent to the “o-tow” in the second segment of verse 27 the “ha-adam” in the immediately preceding first segment of verse 27 or is it the “adam” back in verse 26?
*with the caveat that the Body of Christ is also collective and it too can be described with a singular pronoun. I do in fact think that’s what its saying here and in 1:27 but it is my guess that this is not what you meant when you were tying o-tow to a collective noun.
@deuteroKJ Do you mind if I split our talk about this off onto its own thread? I have been waiting a while for an in-depth discussion of these things with someone who really knows the language to sort out what is possible and what is not. No need to clutter @Guy_Coe thread with dialogue about my nuanced questions on the Hebrew.
I kinda mind, since this has relevance for both of us…
Then I will leave it here, if the professor @deuteroKJ will indulge us both…
As for the potential collective noun in 1:26-27, it seems to me that this indicated, at least, as a development in the thought by the time the chiasmus reaches its end… so I’m fine with either conception.
The identification of this with “Adam” from chapter two, who hasn’t even been presented yet at the close of the first pericope is what I strongly question as the necessary insinuation of the text.
The pronoun goes back to 27a, but I’m suggesting that ha-adam in 27a need not be distinct from adam in 26. In fact I don’t see a good reason to separate them-neither by the change of verbs (the two do overlap semantically quite a bit) or the presence of the article in 27a.
Btw I’ve enjoyed much of what you’ve written on this site (I’m one of those lurkers). Sorry for the first correspondence was on a point of disagreement.
1 Like
I’ll do the best I can to keep up! But over the next few days my wife is out of town and I’ve got five kids to look after. (I’m co-writing a book right now on Genesis 1 with geologist Gregg Davidson. This is why I’m so into the details right now. But our book is offering several literacy-theological perspectives, so you might find yours cited a bit 
we are trying to circumvent the normal debates and offer positive ways of approaching the text for the layperson.)
2 Likes
My goodness man, I wouldn’t even take time out to talk to me under those dire circumstances. I will take it slow. Maybe even come back for most of it in a few days.
Compared the rest of this tough club you are about the most congenial soul here. So far as I can tell you are not even saying the text shows I am wrong about the main idea, just pointing out ways that the text does not demand that I am right.
2 Likes
Not sure which of the two of us you’ll be citing, but it seems as though Mark and I are close to making the same argument, other than my specific objection to the chapter 2 named individual “Adam” as being somehow (whether contemporaneously or even just conceptually) present in the 1:26-27 chiasmus.
Instead, I see the prefatory remarks of chapter 2:5 and ff. as putting Adam in continuity with those previously created chapter 1 “imago Dei” humans.
Glad your priority is on the right thing --although, in your shoes, I’d be bit at odds with myself, because I have not seen this case being explicitly made elsewhere, and it has a lot of merit --linguistically, evidentially, literarily, etc.
Especially without some of the extra baggage other scholars try to carry along with it.
I appreciate your analysis and feedback!
Oh nice! I know Greg. I cited his PSCF article on Nephilim. Dr. Turner, is this you?
Lurkers sometimes lurk for good reasons, so a demurral is also cool… In any case, peace for your day of family “rest!”
Yes that’s me. I was at Bryan College for ten years, but my BioLogos associations got me in some hot water i got to know Gregg during the summer sessions of the grants through BL. I’m not completely on board with BL but I have a good relationship with the staff and still contribute in private emails about technical questions they ask. I appreciate both this site and The Hump with @jongarvey to discuss issues often sidelined elsewhere.
3 Likes