Jeremy Christian's Take on Adam

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Jeremy_Christian

What were the Hebrew words used in Genesis 6:1-4?

Here’s that rabbit hole …

@Jeremy_Christian, can you please take a look at these two threads? Adam and adams, not Adamites and A Tentative Look at Nephilim

I’m quoting a few key parts here, but please read more than just this.

@swamidass

The precise words used in this passage are important. Remember, the word “adams” is usually understood as the descendants of Adam. Significance, is also found in the distinct usage of Elohim and Yahweh Elohim . With this in mind, Genesis 6:4 can be written,

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of [ Elohim ] went to the daughters of [Adam] and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, [ enowsh ] of renown.

Grammatically ambiguous, the Nephilim might be associated with reference to either the “Sons of Elohim ” or their mixed offspring with the “daughters of Adam." Likewise, the grammar is ambiguous in the final part of the verse, and it need not refer to Adam’s descendants. Nephilim is a Hebrew word of uncertain meaning, that is associated with the Hebrew word for “fall,” and might be translated “fallen.”

In one tentative reading, perhaps this verse teaches that the daughters of Adam (from Genesis 2) began to intermix with those outside the garden (from Genesis 1). These hybrid offspring, who are all of us today, are Nephilim, the Fallen. Early on, God might have opposed this intermixing because of the fall, even if interbreeding was part of His original plan. Taking this further, in a regional flood, God might destroy all the visibl e descendants of Adam in this area, the civilized world hete. Then, God might then permit interbreeding after the flood, in a new Noahic covenant, even endorsing it in the story of the Tower of Babel.

@swamidass

, I want to account for. I’m curious if you think the terminology I’m proposing might make sense of this, or if you would adjust it further.

1. We can remind people that “ human ” is not a word that appears in Genesis.
2. “ Adam ” would be a real person a real past (Genesis 2), who we scientifically expect would become ancestor of all of us (if he lived anytime at or before 6 kya), but there will be debate about the theological importance of descent from him. He might be the first “theological” human .
3. “ adams ” is the same biological type as Adam, and we might argue they arise as a community before Adam (Genesis 1). Loosely speaking, we might connect this somewhat with “ humankind ”, but emphasize they a different type of “human” than those referenced by Scripture.
4. “ Sons and/or Daughters of Adam ” are the biological descendants of Adam (see Genesis 6)
5. The “ first Adam ” and “ second Adam ” are referencing Adam and Jesus, the two adams (biological type) God (perhaps miraculously) created with a redemptive purpose (perhaps de novo = Virgin birth).
6. We can refer to the Sons and Daughters of Adam as a “ new kind of adam .”

As for “Adamites,” “Pre-Adamites,” and “Non-Adamites,” these three terms are associated with polygenesis and should be avoided to keep things simpler. . This language is too closely associated with polygenesis to be clear. Unlike polygenesis, all ‘adams’ are the same biological type as Adam (just as Gentiles are the same biological type as Jews).