You will see in my posting above… I think you are the one making a semantic error with how to read “ha’adam”.
Weren’t you and @Guy_Coe just uncharacteristically amening each other over gender-centric views of the text that had God pulling the female nature that was already in Adam out into a separate person?
But linguistically it works fine if you realize 1) the sentence starts with “so”- meaning what comes is done because it is needed to do what God decided to do in 1:26 and 2) this is a list of three things which are done to make that intention a reality and not repeating the same thing three times.
While I don’t buy into the full gender-centric text you two were running up the flagpole, it is clear from what happens in chapter two that “the two shall be one flesh”. That is, a female can be added to the male and the two shall be as one.
You seem to be confusing a vision with something that actually happened. That’s not what I said at all.
Call me the little boy who said the Emperor has no clothes. Call me a man who received a message from God. Call me whatever you like, but the Hebrew text has that article in it, whether the translators put it in there or not. Notice also that the translations don’t even agree if the middle part of the triplet should say “Created He him” or “created He them.” Guess what, its “him”. The Hebrew has a singular pronoun in that middle part, not a plural.
Yes… and so you would think a couple of hundred scholars who know how to READ HEBREW would all produce the same translation that you are producing for that one sentence!
If a Hebrew native speaker writes it the way you write it (in English) … then you would have something. But I can’t even find a Hebrew speaker who translates it into English the way you do.
I see mentions of the conflict in context between saying “THE” Man, and having 2 genders.
Which is why every single translation we see has the conflict resolved by NOT writing THE man… but interpreting Ha-Adam with another word (which you already admit is the equivalent!):
- mankind
- humanity
- or even “man” (implied generic use)!!!
Why would you stick “the” into it when that is the least popular word choice by any professional translators?
1 Like
Yes, it does have an article; which would only be confusing to translate directly onto English. What you refer to in “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.
1 Like
That is not the middle statement. The middle statement does not contain the word “ha-adam”. It is “In the image of God created He him.”
The question should be why they took it out even though its there in the Hebrew? The answer is because it produced syntax that they did not understand. So they changed it to something that they did understand. But this was a view of things inherited from the Jews who had no knowledge of Christ and no concept that God could unite with humanity. Now we know better, so now we can understand what this text has been saying all along. We just have to be willing to take the text as it is actually written instead of altering it to make it into something we could understand without Christ.
This should be extremely exciting news to all believers. It astounds me the level of resistance to the idea that God was pointing to Christ even from Genesis chapter one and that God understood and recorded the idea of God taking the form of a man right from the beginning.
So this must be a pretty recent discovery, right? Like 2015 or so?
Because there aren’t any versions out there who are using this discovery!
The thing is, several Christian denominations are familiar with God uniting with Humanity … and have been for generations … and they are translating the sentence the way the Hebrew, and Catholics and Protestants have been translating it…
1 Like
1:26 contains the first statement. 1:27 begins the middle statement, where ‘ha-adam’ is used.
http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-27.htm
Even more recent. So far as I know, 2016 was the earliest and the final form of the idea was in 2017.
And you got it right, they just took the Jewish view and rolled with it. What they should have done is taken a fresh look at the text in the light of Christ, but they quit being theologians and started being people who just passed on and defended the established dogma. We need them to be real theologians again.
I mean, you believe that Adam was not the first man, right? How did they miss that all these years? Clearly, there is still truth to be discovered in scripture.
That’s not the only place the texts we have are terribly translated. The text on the flood has a lot of misleading stuff.
We are just starting our counting in different places. I meant 1:27 itself is a three part statement. It is three things God does to execute His intent stated in 1:26
“The adam” in that first 1:27 statement is referring to humanity. Agreed?
They can’t even agree whether it should be “created He him” or “created He them” even though the pronoun is clearly the singular. Until recently they were translating chapter two as “Adam” until they finally starting putting what was actually in the text- the man.
People see everything through the lens of their own bias. If they were all trained in a system which also taught a doctrine about it, then they are going to translate it IOW that doctrine. Maybe it takes someone who is not too deep into one position to defend in order to see what has been there all along.
Okay… let’s go with that idea, @Revealed_Cosmology… why shouldn’t we think Special Creation is one of the misleading things?
See Guy’s post?
If you say yourself that ha-adam can mean “humanity”, why not just put “man” in their.
Why would you write “THE” Man … when THE Man contradicts the sense of that particular meaning?
Well I would argue that regarding plants it pretty much is. God simply commands the earth to bring forth vegetation and it does so without any further intervention from Him.What is that but TE? I am not against evolution when it is in the text.
It is not. It is referring to The Man in heaven of whom Adam is the echo or copy on earth (In the image of God created He him). This is the pre-incarnate Christ who walked in the garden with Adam taking His human though still divine form.
I don’t say that. Ha-adam can mean “the men” but not the human race. He is misreading me. And I would write “the man” because the text contains the Hebrew prefix for “the” in front of adam.
I think you are twisting things here … they actually do agree. All the ones who say simply “MAN”, use “him”… and the three versions that refer to Humanity (or some word other than “man”) use “THEM”.
It’s a pretty clean separation!