Use of Adam vs. Ha-Adam

Conversation Side Conversation
,
21

@anon46279830

At some (early) stage the concern of Genesis turns entirely to the offspring of Adam. We may postulate humans outside the garden, but ther focus is on the line(s) of Adam, of which Noah is a representative. It is this line which has corrupted itself, and this line which is to be justly destoyed in the Flood.

There is therefore no reason to insist that the Flood is global, or universal amongst the entire human race as created in Gen 1, though it is the whole human race as define in Adam. And thus the grammatical use of ha’adam is a collective noun for mankind, thus defined by context.

As for the use of “all”, the fact that in Scripoture that is scarcely ever used absolutely has been argued since at least as far back as John Owen in the 17th century. 7:21 still uses ha’adam as an inclusive term for mankind, as defined by the context of Genesis.

1 Like
22

Ignore the earlier version, designed to accentuate the “androgene” scenario.
This is my version of how I would see the “ha’adam” and “adam” translated in a straight
interpretation. I look forward to your selective protest. :smiley:

Genesis 1 MODIFIED RSV

[Note: Because pronouns (he, she, him, her) are frequently bound by the rules of syntax to be one gender or another (otherwise, you have to say “it” and “it’s”), pronouns have been replaced by the sense of the word for “ha adam” or “adam” as it applies to the context.]

[Verses 1 - 20 are excluded for lack of relevance; verses 21 to 25 are included because of possible relevance to future discussions related to “ha’adam”.]
.

Gen 1:20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.”

Gen 1:21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

Gen 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

Gen 1:24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make [[HUMANS]] in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Gen 1:27 So God created [[HUMANITY]] in God’s own image, in the image of God did God create [[HUMANITY]]; both [[male]] and [[female]] God did create.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed the [[HUMANS]], and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

Gen 1:29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.

Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Genesis 2 MODIFIED RSV

.

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work which God had done, and God rested on the seventh day from all the work which had been done.

Gen 2:3 So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work which had been done in creation.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Gen 2:5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up–for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there were no [[HUMANS]]
to till [< would “irrigate” be a better word than “till”? See Gen 2:6!] the ground;

Gen 2:6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground –

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed a [[MALE]] of dust from the ground, and breathed into the [[MALE’s]] nostrils the breath of life; and the [[MALE]] became a living being.

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there God put the [[MALE]] that was formed.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[Verses on 4 rivers have been excluded]

Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the [[MALE]] and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the [[MALE]], saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;

Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the [[MALE]] should be alone; I will make the [[MALE]] a helper fit for him.”

Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the [[MALE]] to see what the he would call them; and whatever he called every living creature, that was its name.

Gen 2:20 The [[MALE]] gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the [[MALE]] there was not found a helper fit for him.

Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the [[MALE]], and while he slept took one of the his ribs and closed up its place with flesh;

Gen 2:22 and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the [[MALE]] he made into a [[FEMALE]] and brought her to the [[MALE]].

Gen 2:23 Then the [[MALE]] said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called [[FEMALE]], because she was taken out of the [[MALE]].”

Gen 2:24 Therefore a [[MALE]] leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Gen 2:25 And [[ADAM]] and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

.
.
.
[Note: Because pronouns (he, she, him, her) are frequently bound by the rules of syntax to be one gender or another (otherwise, you have to say “it” and “it’s”), pronouns have been replaced by the sense of the word for “ha adam” or “adam” as it applies to the context.]

23

I am with you on the idea of a population inside and outside the garden. There is no disagreement between us on the big picture. You are arguing that ha-adam in 6:7 means the same thing as in 1:27- the human race, mankind. Right? I am the one arguing that adam in 1:26 means humanity and ha-adam in 1:27 means “the man”.

If the LORD is the one doing the speaking in 6:7 surely He is aware of every population of humans. Therefore when He says “I will destroy ha-adam” if “ha-adam” means the same thing that it meant in 1:27 and if ha-adam means the human race in 1:27 as you are saying then it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the text is saying that the flood destroyed all of the human race (save the 8). We both agree that the text does not say that. Therefore I conclude that ha-adam does not mean the entire human race in 6:7, just like it does not in 1:27, and rather is modified by the clause “that I have made” to refer to the descendants of “the man” Adam in chapter two.

Does it? Or is it saying “all the men” and coming from the perspective of Shem, Ham and Japheth? That is, not humanity as a race but all the men from the group they knew of. Just as when I fail to find a specific yogurt in the grocery store that my wife sends me after and I report “they are all gone.” Coming from me it is not a statement about the universal absence of the product. If you still insist that it is a universal term for mankind here then the text is speaking of a universal flood which killed all of mankind except for 8, a position which neither you nor I hold.

24

“A pleasant thought crossed my mind about you two @gbrooks9 and @Guy_Coe. Maybe you two have finally come together to arrange a little joke to pull my leg? I talk about applying the basic rules of Hebrew grammar consistently and you guys decide to make wholesale changes to the text and give it a gender studies flavor just to make fun of me a little? I mean, none of what you are talking about addresses the use of Adam vs. ha-adam.” [sic]
Good for you, Mark-- it does help to picture the disagreement in humorous terms, rather than rancorous; but, no, my observations are motivated by a genuine desire to bring put a model I find more “sustainable,” according to my own familiarity with warrant and rationale.
Here’s a snippet from Walton on the related issue. https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/hebrew-corner-2/

25

Ah well, it was a beautiful dream. And it would have been an extremely witty prank.

26

Well, yeah, but it would have been pretty much a wanker prank, too… : )

1 Like
27

Did you see my post to you and Guy wondering if you two hadn’t actually gotten together to pull a prank on me with this?

Look I did not start this exercise so that we could each change the words how we want them to be changed. My point was that our traditional translations were not accurately conveying what the original Hebrew intended.

So for example when you translate 1:27 and 1:28 as…

…you are still not addressing the fact that the actual word used where you use ‘humanity’ has a prefix on the noun that indicates a definite article or sometimes a preposition. See “he” in this chart. Nor does your “translation” address the reality that Hebrew nouns have a sex and “adam” is a male noun. It can mean all of humanity, but “mankind” is truer to the original sense of the word. The whole point about Adam and Eve (and the marriage of every Christian) is to paint a picture of Christ and the church. The roles of husband and wife (not men and women but in the voluntary roles of husband and wife) are “baked into the cake” of those terms.

28

Do I agree that it can be used to “paint this picture.” Yes.
Do I think that’s an appropriately imaginative interpretation? Yes.
Do I think it’s how the ancient Hebrew readers would have understood it? No.
Does that make it “wrong?” No; it makes it partially prophetic.
Am I willing to die on a hill to work against this view? Certainly not.
Am I attracted to this view? No; it seems anachronistic and a bit contrived to me, personally.
And yet, I’m not willing to say it’s “wrong,” per se, given the qualifications I’ve heard from you.
In my view, this doesn’t really have a bearing on the question of whether the chapters are to be read sequentially, or recapitulatively.
Cheers!

2 Likes
29

@anon46279830

  1. Yes of course I saw your post about the prank. It was amusing.

  2. I know you didn’t start the exercise for changes … and so on and so on …

  3. However, [[-I-]] wanted the exercise because I wasn’t sure you were following the Hebrew syntax reasonably:

For the purpose of this discussion, Answers-in-Genesis seems like a fairly coherent presentation:

[1] Adam can mean a Person’s name, or a single male, or one more thing …
(( ^^^ I wrote the bold headers.))

“The Hebrew word adam is translated either as “man” or “Adam” depending on context and on the presence or lack of the definite article (“the” in English, ha in Hebrew). So “ha-adam“ is translated usually as “the man” (referring to either an unspecified man or to mankind as a whole, depending on context), whereas adam (without ha) is translated as “Adam” (referring to the specific man by the name).”

Many Translations don’t use the name Adam until Genesis 3
"So all the way through Genesis 1–3 we have ha-adam and our English Bibles usually translate it as “man” or “the man.” Some translations give “Adam” for ha-adam in Genesis 2:19 or 2:20. In Genesis 3:17 and Genesis 3:21 we have adam (with no ha), which most English Bibles translate as “Adam.” "

Gen 1:26 can be momentarily abused in English: “let us make man in our image”
when the context requires “mankind”.
“There is one more exception in this section of Scripture, which can only be understood in context. Genesis 1:26 says “And God said, ‘let us make man [adam, with no ha before it] in our image’” and 1:27 is parallel to verse 26, giving more definition and precision to the statement in verse 26. Verse 27 says “so God created man [ha-adam] in His own image, in the image of God he created him.“ So we are thinking of a single man at this point. But then it adds “male and female he created them“ (plural). So now we see that “man” comes in two forms: male and female.”

I’ll be comparing this discussion to what you describe to confirm for myself… but if you have thoughts you’d like to offer now, please consider yourself invited.

30

@anon46279830

I wanted to respond to the other part of your posting:

Right. And I did it intentionally. As someone who has had a few years of translating Latin, I am well aware of the use of Gender in regards to nouns and pronouns… and I also know that the rigid mechanics of gender use can sometimes distort a more literal minded translation:

For example, the Latin word for “sailor” is “Nauta”, which is absolutely definitively a feminine noun. This isn’t a big deal in Latin, because Latin speakers never really get tied up in pronouns that must mean He or She! Nouns and pronouns agree in gender … so that people know how to read the sentence. But no Roman adult ever wondered secretly if the Roman navy was full of women.

The final implications for this is the difference between TRANSLATION and INTERPRETATION.

Depending on the Bible version, some may go to 1Samuel 24:3 and read the following: "And he came to the sheep enclosure by the way, where was a cave; and Saul went in to cover his feet: and David and his men remained in the sides of the cave. "

This sentence is a serviceable TRANSLATION of the HEBREW: the Hebrew really does say that Saul went into the cave in order to “cover his feet”.

But, Mark, as you no doubt already know, this is also an AWFUL INTERPRETATION! Because an INTERPRETATION would couch the words to mean what it meant in Hebrew: which is not really covering one’s feet, but engaging in a toilet function!

(Though it should be pointed out that in some ancient cultures, if you were going to “soil the soil”, you covered your feet with your tunic so that nobody had to see it being made, and then you covered up the spot with a handful of dirt. The Essenes were given a trowel when they joined the fraternity, to make bathroom operations that much more perfected!)

image

31

So glad the text doesn’t say God “formed us of dust” after “covering His feet…” : )

2 Likes
32

George how do you expect me to believe you aren’t just messing with me when you write things like that?

And of course you noticed that the AIG point about “ha” in their first paragraph is completely contradicted by what they say the terms mean in 1:26 and 1:27. The start by saying the “ha” means ‘the’ but then when they translate 1:27 they leave it out! And they claim it means mankind completely ignoring that their own translation of the next part of the verse is a singular pronoun: “him”.

Please tell me you are not going to side with AIG against me and every legitimate reference on the meaning of Hebrew prefixes.

33

Because they understand the context. Fortunately we have the context here too- and man comes first, and then the woman says the Apostle Paul and I.

The foot covering example is a euphemism. One set of words said in order to refer to something else in a round-about manner.

34

In Genesis 1:26-27, it is simply not the case that “the male” (singular) comes first, and then the female." “Male and female created He them” is what it says.
What you refer as the middle statement is “ha-adam” and cannot therefore be a proper name. So, as you say, it means “humanity” a singular construct referring to a plurality of individuals.
In order to prevent the “creation order” argument into a heirarchical view, Paul goes on to note that "However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. - 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 NASB

35

@anon46279830

Frankly, I did not notice that the AIG point about “ha” is completely contradicted… suddenly, things are complex, and I have no clear statements to compare.

Do you have a posting that you are particularly happy with? That summarizes your “ha-” interpretations to your full satisfaction? I would like to see exactly what is different and where…

36

@anon46279830,

Yes… Euphemisms are perfect examples of the difference between a literal TRANSLATION of one language into another … vs. an INTERPRETATION of a sentence in one language into an equivalent meaning in another language.

I guess you figure I didn’t read the image I pasted into my last posting? I chose it because it used the term “euphemism” - - which is perfect for what I was explaining.

Momentarily, I would say that you seem awfully attached to the LITERAL translations, rather than the ACTUAL meanings. But we’ll see…

37

I just want AIG to put the “the” in 1:27 where they say it belongs. “So God created the Man in His own image. In the image of God created He him. Male and female created He them.”

All they have to do is use the normal Hebrew syntax , which has not been done by traditional translations. I just don’t understand the massive resistance to translating it according to the standard rules that would be used on any sentence of Hebrew.

38

So all this hoopla, @anon46279830, is about one sentence? You made it sound like they had corrupted the whole chapter!

39

Yep. In chapter one. It is amazing how much changes when you put in, or better acknowledge what is already in the text. Even if it is one definite article.

40

But see… this is the weird thing, @anon46279830, not a single translation out there, translates that sentence the way you do! Just look at the long list below!:

image
image568×737 41.1 KB

.
.
.

In fact, it would seem obvious why people don’t translate that sentence the way you do:

You say: "God created The Man in His own image …
… in the image of God created He him. Male and female created He them.

What the ?
Linguistically, this doesn’t really scan very well, don’t you have to agree?

How does God create “THE” person… when it is followed up by God creating SOMETHING with 2 genders?

“THE MAN” can’t be one person, if there are 2 genders. And if there were 2 genders in one person, it wouldn’t be ONE MAN… it would be ONE PERSON.