RE: The wrong horse in evolution education

Hi Peter, you wrote:
 
>>If you believe 'adam must always refer to Adamites and 'ish always to
people not descended from Adam, you should present a plausible
justification for it, considering all occurrences in the OT. With 'ish,
that would be quite some work as there are far more than 1000
occurrences. But there is no need for that: in Gen.2-3, the 4
occurrences of 'ish all refer to Adam, Eve's husband. And in Gen.6:9,
Noah is called a "righteous man ['ish]". So the distinction between
'adam and 'ish on something like a "racial" basis doesn't work. The
specific meaning of 'ish has to be found from the particular context
where it appears, in addition to the general way it is used elsewhere.<<
 
It isn’t the case that ‘adam “must always refer to Adamites and ‘ish
always refers to people not descended from Adam.” There are other rules
that come into play. Man and woman or man and wife is always ‘ish and
‘ishah, whereas man in conjunction with animals is always ‘adam. I
don’t know who made the rules but the Bible writers follow them.
 
Furthermore, just as all Americans are human beings, not all human
beings are Americans (thank goodness). I can just as easily say Randy
Isaac is a righteous American as I can say he is a righteous man. (He
would probably prefer to be called a forgiven man, however.) But the
point is his status doesn’t change according to how I wish to describe
him.
 
God calls Ezekial “bene ‘adam.” In this instance, “son of man” says no
more about him than it would if the Genesis 6:4 “giants” were so called,
or pharoh of Egypt. It means significantly more if we understand that
he had a royal bloodline and God was calling attention to that.
 
Beyond exegesis, however, I would consider it strange if you and I had
greater awareness of Adam’s place in the world than did the Bible
writers themselves. If Adam and his immediate family were surrounded
and in contact with at least one different culture from the beginning
they certainly must have been aware of it.
 
And if they were aware of it wouldn’t the Scriptures reflect that?
Could I be guilty of looking for confirmation where it doesn’t exist?
Sure. But I would find it harder to believe that the Adamites, later
Semites, also called Accadians, who had to know they weren’t alone in
the world, left it out of the inspired text.
 
In Accadian literature, frequent references are made to the
"black-headed" people, as in this verse: "May his words endure, not to
be forgotten, in the mouth of the black-headed, whom his hands have
created."
 
The "black-headed" refers to the polytheistic Sumerians. Here is an
example from Accadian poetry:
 
            May he shepherd the black-headed ones, his creatures.
            To the end of days, without forgetting, let them acclaim his
ways.
            May he establish for his fathers the great food-offerings;
            Their support they shall furnish, shall tend their
sanctuaries.
            May he cause incense to be smelled,...their spells,
            A likeness on earth of what he has wrought in heaven.
            May he order the black-headed to re[vere him],
            May the subjects ever bear in mind their god,
            And may they at his word pay heed to the goddess.
            May food-offerings be borne for their gods and goddesses.
            Without fail let them support their gods!
            Their lands let them improve, build their shrines,
            Let the black-headed wait on their gods.
            As for us, by however many names we pronounce, He is our
God!
 
>>I agree that Cain (and possibly Noah) married outside the Adamite
line. But I
wouldn't subscribe to your last sentence. Didn't God consider Tamar,
Rahab, Ruth
and Bathsheba to be women worthy of mention in Jesus' kingly genealogy
(Mat. 1)?
And look at their references! Foreigner would be the most gentle of
their
connotations. And they did get mentioned …<<
 
Even Tubalcain’s sister Naamah warrented a mention (Gen.4:22), but she
was an Adamite. I think Genesis is ominously silent as to the identity
of Noah’s lovely spouse.
 
>>A more difficult occurrence of the "image of God in man" is 1
Cor.11:7, "a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image
[eikôn] and
glory of God". This last reference may even refer to nonbelievers, but
it
certainly includes non-Adamites.<<
 
Here Paul is writing to the body of believers at Corinth. His
instructions are to Christians. We don’t have any writings of his to
non-believers so we can’t know how they would have been addressed. This
one reference to the “image” in conjunction with any other than Christ
in the NT is the only instance where it is used, however it is entirely
consistent with what I have suggested earlier that we are in the image
of God when we conform to the image of Christ.
 
>>"Thus, even if you insist on calling only (biological) descendents of
Adam 'real' humans created 'in the image of God', certainly all
presently living humans are included, and perhaps even all the way back
to a few hundred years after Adam."<<
 
I think I addressed this earlier too, but let me restate it here to
avoid confusion. Everybody who belongs to the family of Homo sapiens is
a “real” human. We have a long history going back over a million years.
The only question I have is whether or not it would be consistent with
Genesis and the rest of the Bible to think that every person who
breathed air for the last million years could be said to be “created in
the image of God,” or is it a more exclusive term pertaining to those in
the covenant line from Adam and now includes today the followers of
Christ.
 
And it’s just a question. I’m not going to the mat over it.
Especially, this close to Easter.
 
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
Received on Wed Apr 12 11:35:39 2006