>But the prophets occasionally did distinguish between Adam's kin and
>those who weren't. To get a sense of how common man differs from "Adam"
>or "Adamite," read Gen. 19:8-31. Everywhere you read "man" it is 'ish in
>Hebrew. Where the difference is more easily seen is where 'adam and 'ish
>appear in the same sentence, i.e., Num. 23:19: "God is not a man ['ish]
>that he should lie; neither the son of man ['adam] that he should
>repent." Non-Adamites do not repent of their sins before God.
>
Pardon me Dick but this is what I see as the greatest problem with your
viewpoint. If your view is correct, then it appears that Num. 23:19 means
that only Adamites can repent. Archeology shows unequivocally that my
ancestors were no where near Mesopotamia in 4000 B.C. nor nowhere near
Mesopotamia in 2900 B.C. when you say the flood wiped out all but 8 of the
Adamites. (Germany was populated by farmers between 4000 and 6000 BC. see
Colin Renfrow. Archaeology & Language, 1987, p. 149) Thus, not being of
Adamite lineage, if your view is correct, then my repentance of my sins
must have been self-delusional. Since my wife and children are descended
from Adam (in your view), then my wife's repentence for her sins is valid.
Does this mean we will spend eternity separated?
On the other hand, since it was her people who actually did the sinning, I
can always state that any trouble we have with our children is due to bad
breeding from her side of the family. ;-)
While I know you have tried to make Adam a representative for the entire
human race, the apparent meaning of Num 23:19 along with your commentary,
would seem to indicate that Adam was no representative of anyone except
the Adamites.
Of course, if you include Genesis 10 into the equation, you might be able
to include me with the Adamites through Japheth. But you would need to
move the date of the Flood way back to accomodate archeological evidence
from NW Europe which I cited above.. But what do you do with the American
Indians who are not so fortunate to have been included overtly in the
Table of Nations? Are they classified as those who "do not repent of
their sins before God"?
One more question. In Genesis 19:8 Lot says that he has two daughters
which have never slept with an man[ish]. Does this mean that prior to
this event, his daughters might have slept with 100 Adamite men[adam]
each? Could it be that Lot was therefore saying that his daughters were
not as nice and friendly to the local boys as they were to the Adamite
boys? No wonder the crowd was so angry. :-)
This would lead to an interesting re-interpretation of the events. Since
Genesis 6:1-3 seems to forbid the intermarriage of the Adamites with the
non-Adamites it would be a logical thing for Lot to impregnate his own
daughters since there were no Adamite boys around anymore to marry them.
Presumably the boys they were engaged to prior to the destruction of Sodom
were Adamites.
Of course by the time of Genesis 19:31, Lot's daughters were beginning to
think that even a non-Adamite man would be good. That is why they said
"...there is no man [ish] to lie with us as is the custom all over the
earth. Let us get our father to drink wine and then lie with him... ".
There were no Adamite boys in that cave nor were there any non-Adamite
boys, so Father was next. This just shows that deprevation and isolation
makes even the most repugnant potential partner look good. :-)
>There are many other examples. The one I like best is in I Chronicles.
>In I Chron. 17:17, "God ... hast regarded me according to the estate of
> a man ['adam]." But in I Chron. 20:6, "...there was war at Gath, where
> was a MAN of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty,
six on each hand, and six on each foot." Care to guess which Hebrew word
> was used for a "man" with 12 toes and 12 fingers?
>
My encyclopedia says that the Philistines were an Aegean people who
settled on the Levantine coast. Since there is no record of their
language we can not tell whether they were IndoEuropeans or Semites.
Assuming they were related to the Greeks, then their ancestor would be
Japheth descended from Noah who in turn was descended from Adam. Thus the
Philistines would be Adamites. If that was the case, your interpretation
of I Chron 17:17 is erroneous. If the Philistines were Semites (since
they spoke Caananite) then they were descended from Shem once again
Adamites.
In either of these two cases your distinction between ish and adam
would fail.
[snip]
>In the passage you quoted, James is decrying their wicked tongues. Why?
>Because we are supposed to set an example. Unregenerate men don't need
>to set an example. There was backbiting going on, something we need to
>watch out for. We don't bless God and curse our brothers. (Glenn
>notwithstanding :)
Like all good non-Adamites, I do my best to make the Adamites engage in
bad behaviors. I must keep up the family tradition. :-)
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm