Re: QuRE: mistranslation of 'adam (was: The wrong horse in evolution education)

Hi Dick:
OK, I am quite happy to work with the NIV -- but I would regard the
scholarship in the KJV as somewhat dated. Your citations of the biblical
passages are fine. It is your idiosyncratic interpretation that is the
problem.

Most of Numbers is not poetry. The exceptions are the prophetic
discourses in Chapters 23 and 24. You have selected a passage (23:19) in
one of them. A lot of the discourses in the prophetic books such as
Isaiah and Jeremiah are also in the poetry genre. (I note that you
already recognize that a lot of Job is poetry. By the way, most of Jonah
(that is other than Jonah's prayer) is not poetry -- that is a different
kettle of fish :-)

George Murphy has added precision in his contribution to this thread, re
the translation of the idiom "bene X".
In Numbers 23: 19 and Jeremaiah 50: 40 there is again parallelism. Here
"son of man" and "man" are two ways of expressing the same thing, the
repetition being used for emphasis.

I would say that you have been misled by Dominick M'Causland.
Don

Dick Fischer wrote:

> Hi Don:
>
> Well, let's take a look at a few more verses.
>
> Numbers 23:19: “God is not a man (/'ish/), that he should lie; neither
> the son of man (/bene// 'adam/), that he should repent …”
>
> I would read that as God is not a generic man or common man that he
> should lie, neither is he a son of Adam that he should repent. All men
> can lie, but only those in the covenant line from Adam can receive
> forgiveness through repentance.
>
> How would you read that? Is Numbers a poetic book?
>
> Jeremiah 50:40: “As God
> <http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430&version=kjv>
> overthrew
> <http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=04114&version=kjv>
> Sodom
> <http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05467&version=kjv>
> and Gomorrah
> <http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06017&version=kjv>
> and the neighbour
> <http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07934&version=kjv>
> cities thereof, saith
> <http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05002&version=kjv>
> the LORD;
> <http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03068&version=kjv>
> so shall no man
> <http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0376&version=kjv>
> (/‘ish/) abide
> <http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03427&version=kjv>
> there, neither shall any son
> <http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01121&version=kjv>
> of man
> <http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0120&version=kjv>
> (/bene// ‘adam/) dwell
> <http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01481&version=kjv>
> therein.”
>
> All men are sons of men, so the prophet is saying the same thing twice
> in the KJV. No men will live there, neither will any men live there.
> Whaat? However, if you understand Jeremiah as saying that no common
> men (i.e. gentiles) live there, neither will any sons of Adam live
> there, then he’s saying something. But then you have to recognize a
> difference between /‘ish /and /‘adam/.
>
> Quoting Dominick M’Causland writing in 1864: “The words "Adam" and
> "ish" are clearly different in meaning; and to use them
> indiscriminately, as having the same signification, tends obviously to
> obscure the true import and significance of the Scripture text. Had
> the translation been literal, the sense of the sacred record would
> have been more readily discovered, and the reader would recognize at a
> glance, that the history which he has conceived to be a history of the
> origin of all mankind, is simply a record of the creation of "/the
> Adam/," the last, and not the first of created men, and a history of
> his lineal descendants.”
>
> I won’t re-quote Isaiah, but I question your use of the word “poetry”
> to describe his writings. We’re not talking Job or Jonah here.
>
> Also, most of us north of the equator use the KJV or the NIV, not the
> RSV. You can find commentators who disagree with me, that’s not
> difficult, but if they had gotten it right in the first place I
> wouldn’t have to do this at all.
>
> /Dick Fischer/
>
> Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
>
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
>
> www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of Don Nield
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 6:16 PM
> To: Dick Fischer
> Cc: ASA
> Subject: mistranslation of 'adam (was: The wrong horse in evolution
> education)
>
> Dick Fischer wrote:
>
>>
>
>> 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.
>
>>
>
> Dick's interpretation is an example of eisegesis, not exegesis.
>
> 1. Because a word like /'adam/ can have a range of connotations, that
>
> does not mean that we are allowed select from that range in an arbitrary
>
> fashion. It is essential that the word must be considered in context.
>
> 2. The passages in Psalms and Isaiah cited by Dick are poetry (set out
>
> as such in many Bible versions such as the RSV). A feature of Hebrew
>
> poerty is the parallelism in pairs of consecutive phrases. In Ps 49: 2
>
> (RSV translation) "both high and low, rich and poor together" this
>
> should be obvious.
>
> 3. Idioms must be recognized as such (e. g. in the context of a naval
>
> battle a "man of war" is not an individual militant man.) In Hebrew
>
> /bene 'adfam/ and /ben 'ish/ are common idioms.
>
> 4. The Hebrew scriptures should not be isolated from other relevant
>
> documents. The translation of Hebrew into Greek of Ps 49: 2 in the
>
> Septuagint should settle the matter. The word used there is "anthropos",
>
> not "Adam". The implicatiion is that the verse means "sons of mean men
>
> and sons of great men", that is the low and the high.
>
> Don
>

-- 
Donald A. Nield
Associate Professor, Department of Engineering Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
ph  +64 9 3737599 x87908 
fax +64 9 3737468
Courier address: 70 Symonds Street, Room 235 or 305
d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
http://www.esc.auckland.ac.nz/People/Staff/dnie003/