Hi Paul, you wrote:
>When I argued that Gen 10 says all of the nations and peoples that the
>Hebrews knew of were descended from Noah, and hence "Adamites", I was not
>arguing from the words "all" or "every". I am arguing that Gen 10 gives the
>boundaries of the ENTIRE world as known to the Hebrews at that time and
hence
>that all peoples in that world were understood to be descendants of Noah.
The Sumerians weren't descendants, and they lived in the same region. That we
know historically. Biblically, we also know the Hebrews were aware of others
who
were not in their line of descent.
In Deuteronomy 2:10,11, "The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people
great
and many, and tall as the Anakims; which also were accounted giants, as the
Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims." The Anakims were a race of
giants, descendants of Anak, who dwelled in southern Canaan. Emims were
as tall as Anakims, the Bible attests, and were the ancient inhabitants of
Moab.
In Deuteronomy 2:20,21, "That also was accounted a land of giants: giants
dwelt
therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; a people great
and many and tall as the Anakims; but the Lord destroyed them before them;
and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead." Joshua mentions
"remnant of the giants," "giants," or "valley of the giants" in five verses
(Josh. 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16).
Post-flood Emims, Anakims, or Zamzummims cannot be identified as
Ubaidans, Sumerians, or Persians, but likewise, they do not appear to be
any of Noah's kin either.
>Now as to the Hebrew words "adam" "ish" and "enowsh", are you saying
>1. "adam" is only used to refer to people who are either descended from Adam
>(through Noah) or are in covenant with God or the context also mentions
beasts.
I don't see any exceptions to that.
>2. "ish" and "enowsh" are only used to refer to people who are either not
>descended from Adam (through Noah) or are not in covenant with God or the
>context mentions women?
That is the gist of what I am saying. Bible translators never saw this,
and so
it
isn't seen in translations to the detriment of interpretation. When 'adam and
'ish
appear together, the translators awkward choices out of ignorance made.
One example of this is in Isaiah. Look at the second chapter.
Isa. 2:2,4: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of
the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and
shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it"
“And He
shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and
they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into
pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall
they
learn war any more.”
When this happens what will be the result? "And the mean man (‘adam)
boweth down, and the great man (‘ish) humbleth himself: therefore forgive
them not" (Isaiah 2:9).
We might have understood that both Adamites and non-Adamites will be
humbled before the Lord, but the translators didn't understand it, and
decided
for some reason known only to God that "mean" and "great" would suffice.
Look at Isaiah 31. "Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on
horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen,
because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel,
neither seek the LORD!" (Isa.31:1.
This was an admonition to Mizraim (Noah's grandson) and his kin. The prophet
goes on to say that the Lord will defend Jerusalem and preserve it against
its
attackers (Isa. 31:5), and he pronounces judgment on the Assyrians: "Then
shall
the Assyrian fall with the sword, not of a mighty man (‘ish); and the
sword, not
of a mean man (‘adam), shall devour him" (Isa.31:8). Again, had the
translators
any awareness that 'adam and 'ish signified two distinct populations, those
who
remained faithful to God and those who rebelled against God, they could have
snuffed out the creation-evolution debate in 1611.
When Jacob became "Israel," a name bestowed upon him by his night visitor
(Gen. 32:24-28), and the Bible mentions Israel during his lifetime, it refers
to
the man previously called Jacob. After his death, "Israel" denotes the
nation
of Israel consisting of primarily, though not entirely, the descendants of
Jacob.
Adam (the Hebrew 'adam) is first applied to the man created in the image of
God and placed in the garden. This usage should be retained in
translations.
For example, "God created Adam [not "man"] in his own image ..." (Gen.
1:27).
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created
Adam [not "man"] in the likeness of God made He him" (Gen. 5:1). After
Adam's death, starting with Genesis 6, a variation should be used such as
"son of Adam," "descendants of Adam," "Adamite," or "Adamites." There
may be room for an occasional exception where an extension of meaning may
be applied to all of humankind. For example, Romans 1:16 uses "Greek" as
a collective for all who were not Jews.
"Man and woman" is 'ish and 'ishah. Like toho wa bohu, that we "translate
without form and void" in Gen. 1:2, it trips nicely off the tongue. An
expression
the Thai people use a lot is lao, lao, which means "hurry up" in English. We
don't often tell people to hurry up, but we might if it was as fun to say as
lao, lao.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 11 2000 - 15:14:12 EST