RE: The wrong horse in evolution education

Hi Peter, you wrote:
 
Of course, as you know, here I don't agree with you. However, I agree
with all you say below about Isaiah 43:3-7. Except that it doesn't prove
your point.
 
How we view and interpret the OT Scriptures can depend on whether we
think of them as God's Words copied down by Hebrew prophets, or whether
we favor the idea that the Hebrew prophets wrote their own words under
Godly supervision, or something in between.
 
In the case of Gen. 1-11 the original human authors had been long
deceased before a later editor (Moses?) put them together. I might
agree with you if I thought God was writing over the heads of the human
Hebrew authors and was aiming at a gentile audience. He could have, but
I don't think so.
 
What I go on is more than just reading the words out of context. There
is a definite Hebrew attitude toward people outside the camp. I would
be shocked to think that the Israelites would read Gen. 1:27 and think
it pertained to anybody besides them.
 
One of the reasons I suspect that Noah (and Cain) married outside the
royal bloodline is because of the way their wives are given short-shrift
and are unnamed, versus Adam and Abraham who had wives to be proud of,
so to speak. God may have considered these women worthy of a mention
had He been the primary author.
 
If 'adam had been translated "Adam" every time it came up in Genesis
1-11 we wouldn't be having these discussions at all. But the KJV
translators had preconceived notions and we're stuck with them.
 
As I have pointed out before, 'adam and 'ish are both used for "man."
Translators have carelessly commingled them, however, so we can't see
the differences in pertinent verses.
 
Once you have given up the distinction as you do by conferring 'adam on
generic man in Genesis 1:27, you have lost the ability to make any
further conclusions on subsequent verses that would aid your (and my)
case that Adam comes late in the progression of mankind and that the
Adamic race is not the same as the human race.
 
By keeping the proper distinction between 'adam and 'ish there are other
verses that make better sense where the KJV translation that blurs the
distinction makes little sense.
 
Psalm 49:1-2 is a case in point: "Hear this all ye people; give ear all
ye inhabitants of the world: both low and high, rich and poor,
together."
 
The two Hebrew words bene 'adam, translated "low" in the second verse,
are literally "sons of Adam." What comes to us as "high" is bene 'ish.
The word 'ish is a more general term meaning "man," "male," "human
being," or "mankind." Instead of "low and high," which bear no
semblance of meaning from the original Hebrew, either "sons of Adam and
sons of man," or "Adamite and Non-Adamite" would have been literal
translations, faithful to the Hebrew text.
 
Ah, but who could the sons of man be who are not sons of Adam?
Non-Adamites? How could that be possible? So, the translators avoided
certain controversy by substituting the benign "low and high," virtual
synonyms for "poor" and "rich." Modern translators of newer versions
have simply followed along.
 
This technique of substituting words of convenience where 'adam and 'ish
are contained in the same sentence is used also in Psalm 62:9, where we
do not read, "Surely vanity are the sons of Adam, a lie are the sons of
man ..." Instead we read, "Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men
of high degree are a lie ..."
 
In Isaiah 2:9, do we see the Adamite bow down, and the Non-Adamite
humble himself? No, we see instead, "And the mean man ('adam) boweth
down, and the great man ('ish) humbleth himself ..."
 
This same pattern is repeated in Isaiah 31:8, where the term for generic
man 'ish becomes a "mighty man," while 'adam is a "mean man." So,
thanks to a sanitizing translation process, even a prophet may have
difficulty getting his message to the people.
 
And that's my point. Blurring the distinction between 'adam and 'ish
may be tempting in the opening verse of Genesis, but it sets you up for
error interpreting the rest of the Old Testament as it did for the KJV
translators.
 
And the "image" becomes meaningless for Christ if every member of our
species born under the sun is in the "image" too. Let's preserve that
special status for the one whose bodily resurrection we will celebrate
this Sunday.
 
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Peter Ruest
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:57 PM
To: Dick Fischer
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: The wrong horse in evolution education
 
 
Hi Dick, you wrote (Apr 07 2006):
 
> Hi Peter, you wrote:
>
>> I grant that Gen. 5:1b-2 refers back to 1:27f., but /'adam/ refers to
both
"man"
>> (in the collective sense of "human" or "humanity") and the person
Adam. I find
>> it significant that 5:2 does not say, "When God created Adam and
Eve",
although,
>> in a secondary sense, every individual human being is created (in the
image of
>> God), cf. Is. 43:7.
>
> I thoroughly agree with what you grant. Adam is Adam is Adam. Also, in
> some instances 'adam can mean "man," although I can't think of a place
> in Genesis 1-11 where it does. Now, Isaiah proves my point. Those in
> the image are expressly those in the covenant line from Adam to Christ
-
> not generic man (beginning with Fred Flintstone I believe). Start with
> Isaiah 43:3.
 
Of course, as you know, here I don't agree with you. However, I agree
with all
you say below about Isaiah 43:3-7. Except that it doesn't prove your
point.
 
When God created humanity (Gen. 1:27), he created a new dimension, the
spiritual
dimension of all humans, characterized by the expression "in his image".
But God
also creates every human individual born after that, as we can see, for
instance, in Is. 43:7. This passage, of course refers to Israelites only
- well,
it is even restricted to a God-fearing remnant among them, not all
descendents
of Adam. But God creates all human individuals, no matter what their
ancestry
(Ps. 89:47; Ps. 102:18; Ecc. 12:1; Is. 54:16; Ez. 28:13,15). Is. 43:7
specifies
that he "creates" them (/bara'/, out of nothing), but also "makes" them
(/^asah/, through "natural" processes) and "forms" them (/yatzar/, in
their
mother's womb). All this applies to all humans, not only the faithful
remnant of
Israel, to which Is. 43:7 refers. I discussed this in detail in my
paper,
"Dimensions of the Human Being and of Divine Action", PSCF 57/3, 191-201
(2005).
 
Peter Ruest
 
> Isaiah 43:3: "For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy
> Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee."
>
> Who are "thee" - the people addressed? The Israelites!
>
> Isaiah 43:4: "Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been
> honorable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee,
> and people for thy life."
>
> Whom did God love? The Israelites!
>
> Isaiah 43:5: "Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from
> the east, and gather thee from the west ."
>
> Whose "seed" was God gathering? The seed of Israel!
>
> Isaiah 43:6: "I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep
> not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of
the
> earth ."
>
> What "sons" are these? The sons of Israel!
>
> Isaiah 43:7: "Even every one that is called by my name: for I have
> created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him."
>
> Gosh, who could He be talking about here?
>
> Dick Fischer
 

-- 
Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)