Hi Paul, you wrote:
>I understood you originally to say that ''ish" was only used for people
>either not descended from Adam or not faithful to God. If you are saying,
>only sometimes is this true, then you have no logical biblical basis for a
>distinction elsewhere.
I believe "only" came from your question, and I responded, "that is the gist."
Here is the sequence of our conversation I posted earlier:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
First of all, It is hard to be specific when we are dealing in generalities.
And
remember, what I am proposing is a bit avant garde compared to what has been
the traditional interpretation, so it should not be surprising that I can't
make an
appeal to any old commentary. But if the main line Bible expositors were
right,
we wouldn't have a Bible/science brouhaha going on today. Henry Morris would
still be an hydraulic engineer, (and the Christian community would be better
served.)
The word 'ish has a broader scope than 'adam. Just as "man" has a broader
meaning than "American." A recent immigrant to this country is caught in
between. Even an immigrant who becomes an U. S. citizen may call
himself either an American or call himself by his former nationality. I see
the
Bible writers in the same situation by the time of Moses. But Ezekiel was
addressed as "son of Adam" (bene 'adam) repeatedly, indicating where he
stood with God. Translators, not recognizing any distinction, translate the
phrase, "son of man" starting in Exek.2:1. I believe this is a mistake.
Likewise Daniel is another example. Pointing to the coming Messiah, Daniel
relates a vision: "... and, behold, one like the Son of man ('enowsh) came
with
the clouds of heaven ..." (Dan. 7:13). Yet Daniel is addressed: "Understand
O son of man (bene 'adam): for at the time of the end shall be the
vision" (Dan. 8:17). Should there be no distinction between a prophet and
the coming Christ? Are Daniel and Christ synonymous?
In the New Testament, occasionally Christ is called "son of David," but more
often, "son of man." All four of the gospels include this phrase repeatedly
respecting Christ. We also find "son of man" in Acts 7:56, Heb. 2:6, and
Rev. 1:13; 14:14. In every instance "man" is the Greek anthropos meaning
"human." The phrase "son of man" should be reserved for Christ who is
nowhere called the "son of Adam." To differentiate, a prophet should be
called "son of Adam," in my estimation, not "son of man."
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 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 14:11:49 EST